1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REYMUNDO JOSE MENDEZ, JR., Case No. 1:25-cv-0716 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 15 Respondent. (Doc. 8) 16 17 Reymundo Jose Mendez, Jr., is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The magistrate judge 19 performed a preliminary review of the petition and observed “Petitioner concedes he has not 20 attempted to exhaust administrative remedies.” (Doc. 8 at 3.) The magistrate judge found that 21 although Petitioner believed exhaustion was futile, “the exhaustion requirement should not be 22 excused in this case because Petitioner has deliberately bypassed the administrative scheme, and 23 permitting the petition to go forward would only encourage further deliberate bypass of the 24 administrative process.” (Id.) The magistrate judge explained, “Petitioner’s broad assertion that 25 the BOP generally acts arbitrarily to ignore governing statutes is not a sufficient or founded 26 reason to bypass administrative review.” (Id.) 27 Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 11 at 1.) 28 He again acknowledges that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies and indicates an intent eee IIE I I II RIED IO

1 | to exhaust his administrative remedies “to [his] best ability.” (/d.) Thus, Petitioner does not 2 | dispute the legal findings of the magistrate judge. 3 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 4 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court 5 | concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 | Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 13, 2025 (Doc. 8) are 8 ADOPTED in full. 9 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 11 4. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is □□□□□□□□□□ 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | Dated: _ June 27, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | | certificate of appealability will not be required because this is an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the 27 || detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission,

(9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS,

(5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 28 |

(10th Cir. 1996).