Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00036/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00036-1/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 (Federal)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James L Ford,

Petitioner,

v. 

B. Von Blanckensee,

Respondent.

No. CV-19-00036-TUC-RM

ORDER 

On January 24, 2019, Petitioner James L. Ford filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.)1 After being granted an 

extension of time to respond to the Petition (Doc. 12), Respondents filed an Answer on 

August 15, 2019 (Doc. 14). On August 5, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for 

Reconsideration of the Order granting Respondents an extension of time to answer (Doc. 

13), and on August 22, 2019, he filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 15). On 

November 7, 2019, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich filed a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 17), recommending that this Court deny the Petition on ripeness 

grounds, without prejudice and with leave to re-file; deny Petitioner’s Motion for 

Reconsideration as moot; and deny Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings. Petitioner 

filed an Objection on December 2, 2019. (Doc. 18.) Respondents did not respond to 

Petitioner’s Objection.

 

1 All record citations refer to the docket in CV 19-36-TUC-RM, unless otherwise 

indicated, and refer to the page numbers generated by the Court’s electronic filing 

system.

Case 4:19-cv-00036-RM Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

I. Standard of Review

A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 

CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 

clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

II. Discussion

On November 28, 2018, Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson held a sentencing hearing in 

United States of America v. James Lamar Ford, Jr., CR 18-261-CKJ (LAB) and a final 

disposition hearing in United States of America v. James Lamar Ford, Jr., CR 16-355-

CKJ (LAB). In CR 18-261, Judge Jorgenson sentenced Petitioner to a 24-month term of 

imprisonment, with credit for time served. (Doc. 40 in CR 18-261.) In CR 16-335, 

Judge Jorgenson sentenced Petitioner to a 12-month term of imprisonment, to run 

consecutive to the sentence in CR 18-261. (Docs. 102, 111 in CR 16-335.) The 

Judgment issued in 16-335 originally specified that Petitioner was to receive credit for 

time served (Doc. 102 in CR 16-335); however, Judge Jorgenson later granted a Motion 

to Correct Judgment filed by the Government (see Docs. 106, 108 in CR 16-335) and 

issued an Amended Judgment reflecting no credit for time served as to the revocation of 

supervised release in CR 16-335 (Doc. 111 in CR 16-335). Petitioner appealed Judge 

Jorgenson’s Order granting the Government’s Motion to Correct Judgment in CR 16-335, 

and the appeal is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Docs. 109, 

110 in CR 16-335.)

Case 4:19-cv-00036-RM Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

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

In the Petition filed in the above-captioned civil case, Petitioner asserts that the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons miscalculated his release date by failing to give him credit for 

time served on both the sentence in CR 18-261 and the consecutive sentence in CR 16-

335. (Doc. 1.) In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Markovich found that 

Petitioner’s claims in the Petition are not ripe because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

has not issued a decision on Petitioner’s appeal in CR 16-335. (Doc. 17 at 4-5.) 

Accordingly, Judge Markovich recommends that this Court deny the Petition without 

prejudice and with leave to re-file. (Id. at 5.)

In his Objection, Petitioner specifically notes that he does not object to Judge 

Markovich’s recommendation that his Petition be dismissed without prejudice and with 

leave to re-file. (Doc. 18 at 2.) However, Petitioner asks this Court to recognize that 

Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies so that “in the event refiling becomes 

necessary, this issue will not impede the progress” of the case. (Id.)

Judge Markovich’s Report and Recommendation does not make any findings 

regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, and any such findings would be 

premature in light of Judge Markovich’s unobjected-to finding that the Petition is not ripe 

for review. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objection will be overruled to the extent it asks this 

Court to make any findings regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies.

As Petitioner does not object to Judge Markovich’s finding that the Petition should 

be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to re-file on ripeness grounds, the Court 

has reviewed that finding for clear error, and has found none. Accordingly, the Report 

and Recommendation will be adopted, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice 

and with leave to re-file, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied as moot, 

and Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. 18) to Judge Markovich’s 

Report and Recommendation is overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Markovich’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 17) is accepted and adopted.

Case 4:19-cv-00036-RM Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is denied without prejudice and with 

leave to re-file. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 

this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 

13) is denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 

15) is denied.

Dated this 10th day of January, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00036-RM Document 19 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 4