Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01485/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01485-1/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

Carl Gene Dunlap is a former1federal prisoner with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking review of a sentence imposed upon him in the Oregon District

Court. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Petitioner claims he was not properly awarded credit for time served, despite a

ruling that his federal and state sentences should run concurrently. (Id. at 2, 6-7.) 

The assigned magistrate judge performed a preliminary review of the petition and observed 

“Petitioner brings a § 2241 petition after having brought a § 2255 petition in the sentencing court in 

which he raised precisely the same issue as presented here – whether his sentence is properly 

calculated as having been imposed concurrent with an undischarged state court-imposed sentence.” 

(Doc. 6 at 4.) The magistrate judge found that to the extent Petitioner challenges the imposition and 

1 A search of the Bureau of Prisons inmate locator database shows Petitioner, BOP Register No. 76624-065, is “[n]ot in 

BOP [c]ustody as of: 01/05/2024.” See Find an Inmate, BOP Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited 

January 10, 2025), archived at https://perma.cc/7DWH-ATAF.

CARL GENE DUNLAP,

 Petitioner,

v.

M. ARVIZA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:22-cv-1485 JLT CDB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER 

JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

(Doc. 6)

Case 1:22-cv-01485-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 01/13/25 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

validity of his sentence from the sentencing court, “this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim.” 

(Id.) Although the Court has jurisdiction over a challenge to the calculation of his sentence by the 

BOP, the magistrate judge found “the same issue that was conclusively decided in the earlier habeas 

action” by the Oregon District Court. (Id. at 4-5.) Therefore, the magistrate judge determined “the 

instant petition is barred under the abuse of the writ doctrine” (id. at 4), and recommended the petition 

be dismissed. (Id. at 6.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner at the only address of 

record and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. However, the U.S. Postal 

Service returned the Findings and Recommendations as “Undeliverable, No Longer at this Address.” 

Nevertheless, service upon Petitioner is deemed fully effective. See Local Rule 182(f) (“Each ... pro 

se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or 

telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the 

prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.”). 

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 issued on December 17, 2024 (Doc. 6), are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice.

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

In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability is not required.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

2 A certificate of appealability will not be required because this is an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final order in an habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of 

process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Ojo v. INS, 106 

F.3d 680, 681-682 (5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Case 1:22-cv-01485-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 2