(HC)Simpson v. Trate, No. 1:2022cv00631 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 7 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 5/30/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MERL SIMPSON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. B.M. TRATE, 15 No. 1:22-cv-00631-ADA-SAB (HC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE Respondent. (ECF Nos. 7, 11) 16 17 Petitioner Merl Simpson (“Petitioner”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 30, 2022,1 the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 21 recommendations, recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the 22 petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 11.) The findings and 23 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 24 were to be filed within thirty days after service. (Id.) On January 26, 2023, Petitioner timely 25 filed objections. (ECF No. 12.) 26 In his objections, Petitioner largely reiterates his arguments made in his opposition to 27 Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 8, 12.) Petitioner argues that he should not be 28 1 The findings and recommendations were signed on December 29, 2022, but not docketed until December 30, 2022. 1 1 placed on the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) refusal status 2 and that his privileges should not be conditioned on Petitioner’s participation in the IFRP. (ECF 3 No. 12 at 1.) As mentioned in the findings and recommendations, Petitioner’s criminal judgment 4 specifically stated: “When incarcerated, payment of criminal monetary penalties are due during 5 imprisonment at the rate of not less than $25 per quarter and payment shall be through the Bureau 6 of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.” (ECF No. 1 at 19 (emphasis added).) 7 Petitioner must follow his criminal judgment, as there is no dispute that the sentencing court 8 properly set a restitution payment schedule. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner is not 9 entitled to habeas relief. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 11 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s 12 objections, the Court holds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 13 proper analysis. 14 Accordingly: 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 30, 2022, (ECF No. 11), are 16 adopted in full; 17 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 7), is granted; 18 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; and 19 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 20 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 30, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
