1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOSEA SWOPES, No. 1:21-cv-00062-DAD-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 A. CIOLLI, PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 9) 16

17 18 Petitioner Hosea Swopes is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter 20 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1) and Local 21 Rule 302. 22 On March 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 23 recommending that the pending petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner 24 challenges the validity and constitutionality of his sentence imposed by the United States District 25 Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and does not assert a claim of actual innocence or 26 demonstrate that he never had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present his claims such 27 that relief under

may be sought. (Doc. No. 9 at 4, 6.) Further, the magistrate 28 judge noted that recharacterization and transfer of the pending petition to the Eastern District of 1 | Missouri would not be in the interest of justice because the petition would be an unauthorized 2 || second or successive

motion. Ud. at 6.) The pending findings and 3 || recommendations were served on all parties with notice that any objections thereto were to be 4 | filed within twenty-one (21) days of service. (Ud. at 3.) The time to file objections has since 5 || passed and no objections have been filed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 7 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 8 || magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 9 | analysis. 10 The plain language of

(c)(1) does not require a certificate of 11 || appealability because this is an appeal from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus 12 | pursuant to

, not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention 13 | complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 14 |

(9th Cir. 1997); see Harrison v. Ollison,

(9th Cir. 2008) (plain 15 | language of

(c)(1) does not require federal prisoners bringing section 2241 16 | petitions to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal, unless the section 2241 petition is a 17 || section 2255 petition in disguise”); Ojo v. INS,

(5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw 18 || v. Story,

(10th Cir. 1996). Therefore, no certificate of appealability will be 19 | issued. 20 Accordingly, 21 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 9) are 22 adopted in full; 23 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; 24 3. No certificate of appealability will issue because none is required; and 25 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 26 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ *7 | Dated: _ May 3, 2021 Vile A Drag 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE