1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JUAN EVANGELISTA CASTRO, Case No. 2:24-cv-04910-AB-KES

12 Petitioner,

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND

13 v.

RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.

14 BRYAN BIRKHOLZ, Warden, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 Respondent.

16

17

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition (Dkt. 1), the

19 other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United

20 States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 23). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo

21 review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections

22 (Dkt. 25, 26) have been made. The Court accepts the report, findings, and

23 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the

25 Petition with prejudice (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED and Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite

26 (Dkt. 22) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

27 //

28 1 As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner is not 2 | required to obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal to the 3 | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case. See Harrison v. 4 | Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the plain language of 28 5 | U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does not require federal prisoners bringing § 2241 petitions to 6 | obtain a COA in order to appeal, unless the § 2241 petition “is merely a ‘disguised’ 7 | § 2255 petition”); see e.g., Tomlinson v. Caraway, No. 14-cv-020094-VBF-KK, 8 | 2014 US. Dist. LEXIS 131448 at *2, 2014 WL 4656432 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 9 | 2014) (adopting report and recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal 10 | custody was not required to obtain a COA to appeal the denial of his § 2241 11 | petition). 12 13 | DATED: March 21, 2025 de 14 ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28