Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00016-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONICO ARANZUBIA,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN MERLAK,

Respondent.

No. 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

(Doc. No. 4)

Petitioner Monico Aranzubia is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that the pending petition for habeas relief brought by a federal prisoner be denied 

without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to first exhaust administrative remedies with the U.S. 

Bureau of Prisons. (Doc. No. 4.) The findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner 

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days 

from the date of service of the order. (Id. at 3.) On January 31, 2020, petitioner filed a notice of 

no objection to the findings and recommendations, stating that he has been deemed eligible to 

earn time credits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d) and therefore “no longer requires the assistance 

Case 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of the Court in this matter[.]” (Doc. No. 5 at 1.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 

notice of no objection, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported 

by the record and proper analysis. 

The court notes that in the event a notice of appeal were nonetheless filed in this action, a 

certificate of appealability is not required because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding 

in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. See Forde v. 

U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 4), are 

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied without prejudice; 

and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO Document 7 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 2