Walter A.T. v. Facility Administrator, Golden State Annex

Opinion

WALTER A.T.,1 No. 1:24-cv-01513-KES-EPG (HC) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, TERMINATING FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR, RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO Respondent. Docs. 16, 21 Petitioner is proceeding pro se 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 July 18, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that recommended dismissing the petition as moot and terminating respondent’s motion to dismiss because petitioner was removed from the United States while this case was pending. Doc. 21. The findings and recommendations were served on respondent and noted that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. The Court also attempted to serve the findings and

1 The Court partially redacts petitioner’s name to mitigate privacy concerns, as requested by petitioner and recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See Memorandum Re: Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security & Immigration Opinions (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. recommendations on petitioner by mail, but the mail was returned as undeliverable. No objections were filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court holds the findings and recommendations to be 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 an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, nota 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, 681-82 (Sth Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Accordingly: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 18, 2025, Doc. 21, are ADOPTED in full; 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 16, is TERMINATED; 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as moot; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ September 12, 2025 4A . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE