Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00837/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00837-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LeAnthony Winston, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

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.) 

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 postconviction 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.” 

(Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge found it was not appropriate to convert the matter to a civil rights 

LEANTHONY WINSTON,

 Petitioner,

v.

B.M. TRATE,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0837 JLT HBK

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 

PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DIRECTING THE 

CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

(Docs. 3, 7, and 9)

Case 1:24-cv-00837-JLT-HBK Document 10 Filed 09/20/24 Page 1 of 2
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

action. (Id. 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. (Id. at 5.) 

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 file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections, and the 

time to do so has passed. 

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

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 27, 2024 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED in 

full.

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00837-JLT-HBK Document 10 Filed 09/20/24 Page 2 of 2