(HC)Gutierrez v. Warden, FCI Mendota

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 20, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-01509·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCOS ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, No. 1:24-cv-01509-KES-EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, COURT TO CLOSE CASE 15 Respondent. Doc. 9 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 22, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 that recommended dismissing the petition for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. 22 Doc. 9. The findings and recommendations were served on petitioner and contained notice that 23 any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days after service. To date, no objections 24 have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings 27 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 2 | because this is an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 3 | nota final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of 4 | process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); 5 | see Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-82 (Sth Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th 6 | Cir. 1996). 7 Accordingly: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 22, 2025, Doc. 9, are ADOPTED 9 in full; 10 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 12 13 14 | IIS SO ORDERED. _ 15 Dated: _ June 19, 2025 4h 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(HC)Gutierrez v. Warden, FCI Mendota, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

(HC)Gutierrez v. Warden, FCI Mendota ((HC)Gutierrez v. Warden, FCI Mendota) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related