(HC) Gonzalez v. Ciolli, No. 1:2020cv00724 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 19 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 18 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; and ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/23/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
(HC) Gonzalez v. Ciolli Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID TRINIDAD GONZALEZ, 12 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-00724-DAD-SKO (HC) Petitioner, v. WARDEN CIOLLI, 15 Respondent. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING PETITION AS HAVING BEEN RENDERED MOOT (Doc. Nos. 18, 19) 17 18 Petitioner David Trinidad Gonzalez is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The 20 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On October 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18) be granted and that the pending 24 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as having been rendered moot by petitioner’s 25 release from the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. (Doc. No. 19.) Specifically, the 26 magistrate judge found that the pending petition has been rendered moot because petitioner had 27 filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in his court of conviction and 28 that court granted his motion, reducing his sentence to time served. (Id. at 2–3.) Thus, the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 magistrate judge concluded that “[b]ecause Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought [i.e., 2 release] and is no longer in custody, the petition is now moot.” (Id. at 3.) 3 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties with notice that 4 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the service of the findings and 5 recommendations. (Id. at 3–4.) On November 15, 2021, the service copy of the findings and 6 recommendations that was mailed to petitioner at his address of record was returned to this court 7 as “undeliverable, RTS – unable to forward.” Petitioner was required by Local Rule to file a 8 notice of change of address with this court within 63 days of that date, and he did not do so. No 9 objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed with this court, and the 10 time for doing so has now expired. Petitioner has also failed to file a notice of change of address 11 with the court as required, or otherwise communicate with the court regarding this action 12 following the issuance of the pending findings and recommendations. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 14 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that 15 the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 16 the pending petition will be dismissed as having been rendered moot. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. 19 20 adopted in full; 2. 21 22 25 26 Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 18) is granted; 3. 23 24 The findings and recommendations issued on October 29, 2021 (Doc. No. 19) are The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed as having been rendered moot; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.