(HC) Henry v. Warden of USP Atwater

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DREW JOSEPH HENRY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01578 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 WARDEN, USP-ATWATER, HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 15 Respondent. AND CLOSE CASE

16 (Docs. 6, 8) 17 Drew Joseph Henry is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent moved to dismiss the 19 complaint, asserting that contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, records from the Bureau of Prisons 20 indicate Petitioner “is eligible to earn and apply” First Step Act time credits. (Doc. 6 at 2.) Thus, 21 Respondent contends “there is no case or controversy” for the Court to adjudicate. (Id.) 22 The assigned magistrate judge reviewed the provided BOP exhibits and found that 23 Petitioner’s records show he was deemed eligible to earn FSA credits. (Doc. 8 at 2.) The 24 magistrate judge found Petitioner was “granted the relief he sought, [and] the underlying matter is 25 moot.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant Respondent’s motion 26 to dismiss. (Id. at 3.) 27 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 28 1 | any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 8 at 3.) The Court advised him that the □□□□□□□□ to 2 | file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 3 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections, 4 | and the time to do so has passed. 5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 6 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 7 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 14, 2025 (Doc. 8) are 9 ADOPTED in full. 10 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. 11 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 12 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 13 5. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is □□□□□□□□□□ 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: _ May 9, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | A certificate of appealability will not be required because this is an order dismissing a petition for writ of 7 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (Sth Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 28 | 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).