2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRYL A. JACKSON, Case No. CV 20-4161 PA (SP) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART FINDINGS AND

v. RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 13

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

VON BLANCKENSEE, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on 18 file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 19 Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to 20 which petitioner and respondents have objected. The Court accepts in part and 21 denies in part the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that for the reasons set forth in Bolden v. 23 Ponce, 20 CV 03870 JFW MAA, 20 WL 2097751, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) 24 (“living conditions” claim should have been brought as a civil rights complaint rather 25 than in a habeas petition) Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 6) is granted 26 to the extent it seeks dismissal on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over 27 Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 1 | Smith, et al. v. Von Blanckensee, No. CV 20-4642-IVS JEM, 2020 WL 4370954, at *3 2 || (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Smith v. 3 || Blanckensee, No. CV 20-4642-JVS-JEM, 2020 WL 4368060 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) (“To 4 || the extent Petitioners argue that their continued incarceration is in violation of their Eighth 5 || and Fifth Amendment rights and seek a sentence of time-served due to the conditions of 6 || confinement implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, their ‘request for relief exceeds 7 || the Courts jurisdiction under Section 2241' and must dismissed.”) (citation omitted); 8 || Kutzner v. Ponce, No. CV 20-00927-JLS, Dkt. 19 at *2 (In Chambers) Order Dismissing 9 || Petition Without Prejudice and Denying Request for Alternative Relief at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. 10 || Aug. 11, 2020) (“because Petitioner's claim challenges his conditions of confinement, it is 11 || not properly brought as a 2441 petition,” but holding that it could be refiled as a Bivens 12 || action after exhaustion of administrative remedies). Accordingly, Judgment shall be 13 || entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 14 | DATED: August 19, 2020 a □□ 15 : (At Sip a 16 lig Ale

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-