Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01087/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01087-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brent Eugene Bailey
Petitioner
Warden
Respondent

Document Text:

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 

BRENT EUGENE BAILEY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:23-cv-01087-KJM-EFB (HC) 

ORDER 

Petitioner proceeds without counsel in this petition for writ of habeas under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 as provided by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). Petitioner alleges he is entitled to relief because there has been an intervening 

change in the interpretation of statutory law. See generally Pet., ECF No. 1. 

 On April 24, 2024, the magistrate judge screened petitioner’s § 2241 petition and 

dismissed it after noting the Supreme Court in Jones “held the savings clause in § 2255(e) ‘does 

not permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in statutory interpretation to circumvent 

AEDPA’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a § 2241 petition.’” 

Order at 3, ECF No. 6 (quoting Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 471 (2023). The magistrate 

judge granted petitioner “leave to file an amended petition attempting to cure the defect 

identified” in the order within 30 days. Id. 

///// 

Case 2:23-cv-01087-KJM-EFB Document 10 Filed 08/26/24 Page 1 of 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 

2 

Petitioner did not file an amended petition. On June 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed 

findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all 

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 

days. F.&R., ECF No. 6. Petitioner has filed a “motion for reconsideration” of the magistrate 

judge’s order dismissing the petition, Mot., ECF No. 8, as well as objections to the findings and 

recommendations, Objs., ECF No. 9. 

The court considers the motion for reconsideration first. A party may seek 

reconsideration of a magistrate judge’s ruling under Local Rule 303(c). “The standard that the 

assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ standard 

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). The court has reviewed the 

magistrate judge’s order and finds no clear errors or holdings contrary to law in the magistrate 

judge’s order. As the magistrate judge notes, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones forecloses 

petitioner’s petition. Petitioner’s argument that Jones is inapplicable because the petition was 

filed prior to the issuance of the decision is unpersuasive. See Swopes v. Ciolli, No. 22-16054, 

2023 WL 5567196, at *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023) (unpublished) (determining petitioner “had no 

right to file a § 2241 petition in the first instance” under Jones, even though Jones was issued 

after petitioner filed an appeal); see also Mason v. United States, No. 23-00245, 2024 WL 

2271852, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 20, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 23-00245, 

2024 WL 2923893 (D. Ariz. June 10, 2024) (similarly rejecting argument that Jones does not 

apply to petition filed before issuance of Jones). 

 The court has also conducted a de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings 

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 17, 2024 (ECF No. 7), are adopted in 

full; 

2. The motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is DENIED; 

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; and 

Case 2:23-cv-01087-KJM-EFB Document 10 Filed 08/26/24 Page 2 of 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 

3 

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

DATED: August 23, 2024. 

Case 2:23-cv-01087-KJM-EFB Document 10 Filed 08/26/24 Page 3 of 3