Smith v. LA MDC

W.D. Oklahoma

Smith v. LA MDC

DecidedJuly 23, 2024

Docket5:23-cv-00996

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. LA MDC (Smith v. LA MDC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. LA MDC, (W.D. Okla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

NICOIS SMITH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-00996-PRW ) LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN ) DETENTION CENTER, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER This matter is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4). The Court observes that no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation within the time limits prescribed.1 Having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court concurs with Judge Erwin’s conclusions that to the extent Petitioner is challenging his pretrial proceedings and detention, he must first do so within his federal criminal case,2 and to the extent he is challenging the conditions of his confinement, he “must do so through a civil rights action.”3 Accordingly, the Court hereby

1 Petitioner Smith filed two motions before the deadline to object to the Report and Recommendation. However, construing the motions liberally, neither raises an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 2 See Thompson v. Robinson, 565 F. App’x 738, 739 (10th Cir. 2014). The Court cites unpublished decisions of the Tenth Circuit for their persuasive value, consistent with Tenth Cir. R. 32.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. 3 Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012). ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4) in full, DISMISSES the Petition (Dkt. 1) without prejudice, and DENIES AS MOOT the pending motions (Dkts. 5, 8).* IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July 2024.

PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

* Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. However, “a federal prisoner . . . does not need a COA to appeal a final judgment in a § 2241 case.” Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court need not consider a COA in this case.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

NICOIS SMITH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-00996-PRW ) LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN ) DETENTION CENTER, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER This matter is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4). The Court observes that no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation within the time limits prescribed.1 Having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court concurs with Judge Erwin’s conclusions that to the extent Petitioner is challenging his pretrial proceedings and detention, he must first do so within his federal criminal case,2 and to the extent he is challenging the conditions of his confinement, he “must do so through a civil rights action.”3 Accordingly, the Court hereby

1 Petitioner Smith filed two motions before the deadline to object to the Report and Recommendation. However, construing the motions liberally, neither raises an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 2 See Thompson v. Robinson, 565 F. App’x 738, 739 (10th Cir. 2014). The Court cites unpublished decisions of the Tenth Circuit for their persuasive value, consistent with Tenth Cir. R. 32.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. 3 Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012). ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4) in full, DISMISSES the Petition (Dkt. 1) without prejudice, and DENIES AS MOOT the pending motions (Dkts. 5, 8).* IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July 2024.

PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

* Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. However, “a federal prisoner . . . does not need a COA to appeal a final judgment in a § 2241 case.” Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court need not consider a COA in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. LA MDC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-la-mdc-okwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack