(HC) Winston v. Trate

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEANTHONY WINSTON, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0837 JLT HBK ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, ) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR B.M. TRATE, ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DIRECTING THE ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Respondents. ) ) (Docs. 3, 7, and 9) 16 ) 17 LeAnthony Winston, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting two grounds for relief: (1) cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) deprivation of due process. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) Petitioner also seeks temporary restraining orders and a preliminary injunction. (Docs. 3, 7.)

21 The magistrate judge reviewed the allegations of the petition and observed that the “claims are premised on [Petitioner’s] allegation that he was restricted from using his phone and/or message service and denied access to mail and his legal papers, which in turn interfered with his post- conviction process, including his claim of actual innocence.” (Doc. 9 at 3.) The magistrate judge found, “[b]ecause the success of neither claim would not lead to Petitioner’s immediate or earlier release from confinement, … the Petition fails to state a cognizable habeas claim.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended “the Petition be dismissed for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction.”

28 (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge found it was not appropriate to convert the matter to a civil rights action. (Ud. at 4-5.) Finally, the magistrate judge recommended Petitioner’s motions for injunctive || relief be denied due to the failure to state a cognizable claim under Section 2241. (Ud. at 5.)

3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 9 at 6.) The Court advised Petitioner that the “failure to f || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (/d., citing || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections, and t || time to do so has passed.

8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

9 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 27, 2024 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED 12 full.

13 2. The petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim.

14 3. Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 3 and 7) are DENIED.

16 ||IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 || Dated: _ September 19, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE