Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03007/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03007-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Lopez-Cortez
Petitioner
S. Salmonson
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

RAUL LOPEZ-CORTEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

S. SALMONSON,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:23-cv-03007-JDP (HC)

ORDER

GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW,

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO 

EXPEDITE, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 

COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 

TO THIS ACTION, AND DIRECTING 

PETITIONER TO FILE A RESPONSE TO 

THE MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS OF THIS ORDER’S ENTRY

ECF Nos. 21 & 24

FINDING & RECOMMENDATION

THAT PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE DENIED

ECF No. 25

Raul Lopez-Cortez, a federal prisoner, has filed a motion to petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that he is entitled to time credits under the First Step Act

and that the Bureau of Prisons has failed to apply those credits properly. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on March 5, 2024. ECF No. 13. Petitioner, through his 

counsel, initially filed a statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 17. That non-opposition was then 

withdrawn, ECF No. 20, and petitioner’s counsel moved to withdraw, ECF No. 21. Petitioner has 

Case 2:23-cv-03007-DAD-JDP Document 27 Filed 06/11/24 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

stated that he does not oppose his counsel’s withdrawal and the requirements of Local Rule 

182(d) appear to have been met. ECF No. 23. That motion will, therefore, be granted.

Also pending are two motions that petitioner has filed pro se. First, he has filed a motion 

to expedite proceedings, ECF No. 24, wherein he asks the court to decide his previously filed 

motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 5. That motion is no longer active, however, because 

his counsel withdrew it on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 18. Accordingly, there is nothing to 

expedite, and, if petitioner wishes to pursue preliminary injunctive relief, he must file another 

motion. 

Second, petitioner has filed a motion for default judgment, ECF No. 25, arguing that 

respondent has failed to file a timely response to his habeas petition. That is incorrect, however. 

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13. That form of response is acceptable and 

contemplated by my January 2024 order. ECF No. 6 at 2. Accordingly, this motion should be 

denied. Petitioner is directed to file a response to that motion to dismiss within thirty days of this 

order’s entry. 

It is ORDERED that:

1. The motion to withdraw as attorney, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED, and petitioner 

shall now proceed pro se. 

2. Petitioner’s motion to expedite, ECF No. 24, is DENIED, and he is directed to file 

a response to the pending motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, within thirty days of this order’s entry. 

Respondent may file a reply within fourteen days of petitioner’s response. 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for default judgment, ECF No. 

25, be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

Case 2:23-cv-03007-DAD-JDP Document 27 Filed 06/11/24 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

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-03007-DAD-JDP Document 27 Filed 06/11/24 Page 3 of 3