Robert Rand v. Michael Carvajal et al, No. 2:2021cv00720 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing the action without prejudice. (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robert Rand v. Michael Carvajal et al Doc. 18 Case 2:21-cv-00720-AB-AFM Document 18 Filed 08/04/21 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT RAND, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 2:21-cv-00720-AB (AFM) Petitioner, v. MICHAEL CARVAJAL, et. al, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondents. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Report and 18 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) issued on May 21, 19 2021. On June 16, 2021, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Motion to Withdraw,” 20 which the Court construes as objections to the Report. (ECF 17.) The Court has 21 engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have 22 been made and concludes that Petitioner’s objections lack merit. 23 Initially, Petitioner indicates that he did not intend his claim to be construed as 24 a request for compassionate release. Rather, he intends to present his motion for 25 compassionate release to the sentencing court and requests that the Court dismiss the 26 portion of his petition raising such a claim without prejudice. (ECF 17 at 1.) It is 27 noted that the Report already recommends dismissal without prejudice. 28 Petitioner also argues that his “primary” claim for relief was a request for Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00720-AB-AFM Document 18 Filed 08/04/21 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:237 1 declaratory judgment that the BOP erred in categorizing his offense as a crime of 2 violence. (ECF 17 at 1.) Notably, Petitioner does not allege that the BOP has relied 3 upon the categorization of his offense to take any action adversely affecting his 4 sentence. Thus, there is no basis on which to conclude that the remedy Petitioner 5 apparently seeks – namely, expunging from his prison file the categorization of his 6 offense as a crime of violence – would lead to his earlier release. See generally 7 Fiorito v. Entzel, 829 F. App’x 192, 194 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Bostic v. Carlson, 8 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989) (habeas corpus is available “when a petitioner 9 seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely 10 to accelerate the prisoner’s eligibility for parole”)). Even liberally construed, the 11 petition fails to allege facts demonstrating that a writ of habeas corpus could 12 appropriately address any harm that Petitioner seeks to remedy. See Preiser v. 13 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Given the absence of allegations that Petitioner 14 has suffered adverse consequences from the BOP’s designation of his offense, 15 Petitioner has not invoked habeas corpus jurisdiction. See Fiorito, 829 F. App’x at 16 194.1 17 Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are overruled, and the Court accepts the 18 findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT THEREFORE IS 19 ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is 20 accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and 21 dismissing the action without prejudice. 22 DATED: August 04, 2021 23 ____________________________________ ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 1 27 28 The Report construed this claim as seeking judicial reweighing of factors that Congress has delegated to the BOP and recommends that the claim be dismissed with prejudice. Because the precise contours of Petitioner’s claim are difficult to discern and because the dismissal is based on lack of habeas jurisdiction, the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
