Brent Blake v. W.S. Pilier

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 BRENT BLAKE, Case No. ED CV 19-02442-RGK (PD) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES 14 FELIPE MARTINEZ, JR.,1 MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. [16] Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 , the Court has reviewed the Petition, the [17] records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of United States [18] Magistrate Judge. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have [19] been filed. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and adopts it as [20] its own findings and conclusions. [21] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment will be entered [22] dismissing the Petition without prejudice. [25] 1 Felipe Martinez, Jr., became the Warden of the Federal Correctional Complex in [26] Victorville, California, where Petitioner is currently incarcerated, and therefore is 27 substituted for the previous Respondent. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). [28] 1 As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , Petitioner is 2 || not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal to the Ninth 3 || Circuit Court of Appeals in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 , 4 || 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1) does not require 5 || federal prisoners bringing section 2241 petitions to obtain a certificate of 6 || appealability to appeal, unless the section 2241 petition is a section 2255 7 || petition in disguise”); see e.g., Tomlinson v. Caraway, No. 14-2094-VBF (KK), 8 | 2014 WL 4656482, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (adopting report and 9 || recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not 10 || required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his 11 || section 2241 petition). [12] 13 || DATED: July 31, 2020. [14] 15 J “Oo \Reweanm 16 R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE