(HC) Wilcox v. Merlak et al, No. 1:2019cv01410 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 13 MOTION to DISMISS; ORDERED that Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; In the event a Notice of Appeal is filed, no Certificate of Appealability will be required; New case no. 1:19-cv-1410 AWI-SKO (HC), signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/15/2020. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMON LEE WILCOX, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 13) v. 15 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16 17 No. 1:19-cv-01410-NONE-SKO (HC) STEVEN MERLAK, Warden, et al., Respondents. 18 19 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE (Doc. No. 18) 20 21 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 22 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On March 2, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge 23 issued findings and recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss the 24 pending petition for lack of standing and ripeness, failure to exhaust, and lack of jurisdiction be 25 granted. (Doc. Nos. 13, 18.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and 26 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of 27 service of that order. To date, no party has filed objections and the time for doing so has passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 A certificate of appealability is not be not required in this case because this is an order 5 denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final 6 order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by 7 a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS, 8 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). 9 10 11 Accordingly: 1. The findings and recommendations, filed March 2, 2020 (Doc. No. 18), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 12 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED; 13 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 14 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 15 of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; and, 16 5. 17 required. 18 19 20 21 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability will be This order terminates the action in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 15, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.