Ali v. Streeval, No. 7:2022cv00200 - Document 19 (W.D. Va. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations, Denying Respondent's 14 Motion to Dismiss, and Granting Petitioner's 15 Motion to Transfer signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/06/2022. CASE TRANSFERRED to Western District of Virginia. (Flores, E) [Transferred from California Eastern on 4/8/2022.]

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HASSAN ALI, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:21-cv-01325-DAD-SAB (HC) Petitioner, v. IAN CONNORS, et al., Respondents. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO TRANSFER (Doc. Nos. 14, 15, 18) 17 18 Petitioner Hassan Ali is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 18, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that petitioner’s motion to transfer his petition to the United 23 States District Court for the Western District of Virginia (Doc. No. 15) be granted because “[a]t 24 the time Petitioner commenced this action and to date,” petitioner has been serving his sentence at 25 United States Penitentiary Lee, which is located within the Western District of Virginia. (Doc. 26 No. 18 at 2.) The findings and recommendations also recommend that respondent’s motion to 27 dismiss the petition due to a lack of jurisdiction (Doc. No. 14) be denied, noting that respondent 28 recognized therein that the court may instead elect to transfer the petition “to a district in which it 1 1 should have been brought.” (Id.) (citing Doc. No. 14 at 2). The findings and recommendations 2 were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 3 fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) No objections have been filed, and the time in which 4 to do so has now passed. 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 6 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 7 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 Accordingly: 9 1. 10 The findings and recommendations issued on February 18, 2022 (Doc. No. 18) are adopted in full; 11 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition (Doc. No. 14) is denied; 12 3. Petitioner’s motion to transfer this action (Doc. No. 15) is granted; and 13 4. The action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Western 14 15 16 District of Virginia. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 6, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 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.