1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 ROBERT RAND, Case No. 2:21-cv-00720-AB (AFM)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS v. 13 AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 14 MICHAEL CARVAJAL, et. al, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondents. 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Report and 18 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) issued on May 21, 19 2021. On June 16, 2021, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Motion to Withdraw,” 20 which the Court construes as objections to the Report. (ECF 17.) The Court has 21 engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have 22 been made and concludes that Petitioner’s objections lack merit. 23 Initially, Petitioner indicates that he did not intend his claim to be construed as 24 a request for compassionate release. Rather, he intends to present his motion for 25 compassionate release to the sentencing court and requests that the Court dismiss the 26 portion of his petition raising such a claim without prejudice. (ECF 17 at 1.) It is 27 noted that the Report already recommends dismissal without prejudice. 28 Petitioner also argues that his “primary” claim for relief was a request for 1 || declaratory judgment that the BOP erred in categorizing his offense as a crime of 2 || violence. (ECF 17 at 1.) Notably, Petitioner does not allege that the BOP has relied 3 || upon the categorization of his offense to take any action adversely affecting his 4 || sentence. Thus, there is no basis on which to conclude that the remedy Petitioner 5 || apparently seeks — namely, expunging from his prison file the categorization of his 6 || offense as a crime of violence — would lead to his earlier release. See generally 7 || Fiorito v. Entzel,

, 194 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Bostic v. Carlson, 8 |

(9th Cir. 1989) (habeas corpus is available “when a petitioner 9 || seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely 10 || to accelerate the prisoner’s eligibility for parole’”)). Even liberally construed, the 11 || petition fails to allege facts demonstrating that a writ of habeas corpus could 12 || appropriately address any harm that Petitioner seeks to remedy. See Preiser v. 13 || Rodriguez,

(1973). Given the absence of allegations that Petitioner 14 || has suffered adverse consequences from the BOP’s designation of his offense, 15 || Petitioner has not invoked habeas corpus jurisdiction. See Fiorito, 829 F. App’x at 16 || 194.! 17 Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are overruled, and the Court accepts the 18 || findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT THEREFORE IS 19 |} ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is 20 || accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and 21 || dismissing the action without prejudice. 22 | DATED: August 04, 2021 (, 24 ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE | The Report construed this claim as seeking judicial reweighing of factors that Congress has 27 || delegated to the BOP and recommends that the claim be dismissed with prejudice. Because the precise contours of Petitioner’s claim are difficult to discern and because the dismissal is based on 28 | lack of habeas jurisdiction, the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.