James Raymond Ellis v. Warden FCI Lompoc II

Opinion

4 O

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 JAMES RAYMOND ELLIS, Case No. 2:25-cv-09875-JLS-KES

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.

14 WARDEN FCI LOMPOC II, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 Respondent.

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition (Dkt. 1),

19 the other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

20 the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 11). No objections to the R&R were filed,

21 and the deadline for filing such objections has passed. The Court accepts the

22 report, findings, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss

24 (Dkt. 8) is granted, and (2) Judgment is entered dismissing the Petition without

25 prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

26 As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner is not

27 required to obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal to the

28 United States Court of Appeals in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 1 | 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does 2 | not require federal prisoners bringing § 2241 petitions to obtain a COA in order to 3 | appeal, unless the § 2241 petition “is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 petition’’); see 4 | e.g., Tomlinson v. Caraway, No. 14-cv-020094-VBF-KK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5 | 131448 at *2, 2014 WL 4656432 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014) (adopting R&R 6 || and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not required to obtain a COA to 7 | appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition). 8 2 a 9 | DATED: June 24, 2026 ee ih 10 Hon. Josephine L. Staton UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28