Ronnie Jackson, Jr., aka Hasan Ali v. J. Doerer

Opinion

RONNIE JACKSON, JR., aka HASAN No. 1:26-cv-00061-KES-SKO (HC) ALI, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING REQUEST FOR v. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT

J. DOERER, Doc. 5 Respondent.

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 8, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. 5. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. On January 16, 2026, petitioner filed a request for injunctive relief. Doc. 6. On January 26, 2026, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Doc. 8. But petitioner does not provide a legal basis to grant injunctive relief and he does not meaningfully address the magistrate judge’s reasoning in the findings and recommendations. Docs. 6, 8. Petitioner’s objections generally restate arguments from his petition, but they do not address the lack of Jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition based on petitioner’s failure to timely assert his claims in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Doc. 8. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner's objections, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required because this is 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, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (Oth Cir. 1996). Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 8, 2025, Doc. 5, are adopted in full; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 3. The request for injunctive relief is denied; 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 5. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is required. 97 ITIS SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ April 14, 2026 4h | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□