(HC) Lopez-Cortez v. Salmonson

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAUL LOPEZ-CORTEZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-03007-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW, DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO S. SALMONSON, EXPEDITE, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 15 Respondent. TO THIS ACTION, AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE A RESPONSE TO 16 THE MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THIS ORDER’S ENTRY ECF Nos. 21 & 24 FINDING & RECOMMENDATION THAT PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 20 DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE DENIED 21 ECF No. 25 23 Raul Lopez-Cortez, a federal prisoner, has filed a motion to petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that he is entitled to time credits under the First Step Act and that the Bureau of Prisons has failed to apply those credits properly. ECF No. 1 at 3-4.

26 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on March 5, 2024. ECF No. 13. Petitioner, through his counsel, initially filed a statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 17. That non-opposition was then withdrawn, ECF No. 20, and petitioner’s counsel moved to withdraw, ECF No. 21. Petitioner has stated that he does not oppose his counsel’s withdrawal and the requirements of Local Rule 182(d) appear to have been met. ECF No. 23. That motion will, therefore, be granted.

3 Also pending are two motions that petitioner has filed pro se. First, he has filed a motion to expedite proceedings, ECF No. 24, wherein he asks the court to decide his previously filed motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 5. That motion is no longer active, however, because his counsel withdrew it on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 18. Accordingly, there is nothing to expedite, and, if petitioner wishes to pursue preliminary injunctive relief, he must file another motion.

9 Second, petitioner has filed a motion for default judgment, ECF No. 25, arguing that respondent has failed to file a timely response to his habeas petition. That is incorrect, however.

11 Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13. That form of response is acceptable and contemplated by my January 2024 order. ECF No. 6 at 2. Accordingly, this motion should be denied. Petitioner is directed to file a response to that motion to dismiss within thirty days of this order’s entry.

15 It is ORDERED that: 16 1. The motion to withdraw as attorney, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED, and petitioner shall now proceed pro se.

18 2. Petitioner’s motion to expedite, ECF No. 24, is DENIED, and he is directed to file a response to the pending motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, within thirty days of this order’s entry.

20 Respondent may file a reply within fourteen days of petitioner’s response.

21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.

22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for default judgment, ECF No. 25, be DENIED.

24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to | appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 ( — Dated: _ June 10, 2024 Q_——_.

8 awe D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE