Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01742/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01742-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Brewer
Respondent
Bonifacio Carlos-Tofolla
Petitioner

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

BONIFACIO CARLOS-TOFOLLA,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID BREWER,

Respondent.

No. 2:22-cv-01742-DAD-SCR

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

HABEAS PETITION

(Doc. No. 6)

Petitioner Bonifacio Carlos-Tofolla is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 

for a 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 March 19, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge ordered petitioner to submit an 

affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee within 

thirty days of the entry of that order. (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) Petitioner was cautioned that failure to 

comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.) To 

date, petitioner has not filed either an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma 

pauperis or the requisite filing fee.

On June 7, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to 

comply with the court’s order. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and recommendations were served 

Case 2:22-cv-01742-DAD-SCR Document 8 Filed 12/06/24 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

upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service. (Id. at 1.) To date, petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in 

which to do has passed.

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, the court concludes that the 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 7, 2024 (Doc. No. 6) are 

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, without 

prejudice;1

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 Because petitioner is a federal prisoner bringing a § 2241 petition, a certificate of appealability 

is not required. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The plain language 

of [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c)(1) does not require a petitioner to obtain a COA in order to appeal the 

denial of a § 2241 petition.”).

Case 2:22-cv-01742-DAD-SCR Document 8 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 2