1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || JORGE LUIS VALDEZ, JR., Case No. EDCV 20-02077 SVW (PVC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER (1) ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

CONCLUSIONS AND

13 Vv. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE,

14 J. PICKETT, Warden, AND (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TRANSFER (DKt. 15 Respondent. No. 8) 16 PO

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all the records 18 || and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 19 || Judge. The time for filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation has passed and 20 || no Objections have been received. Accordingly, the Court accepts the findings, 21 || conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 22 23 Although Petitioner did not file Objections to the Report and Recommendation, he 24 || did file a request for transfer. (Dkt. No. 8). In the request, Petitioner asks the Court to 25 || transfer the Petition to the “proper court or district” if this Court does not have jurisdiction 26 || over its claims. (/d. at 1). The conviction challenged in the Petition occurred in the 27 || Riverside County Superior Court, which is in the Central District. Accordingly, ifthe 28 || Petition stated a cognizable habeas claim, venue would be proper in this Court. See 28

1 | U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, for the reasons explained in the Report and 2 || Recommendation, no district court, sitting in habeas, has jurisdiction over the Petition. 3 || Grounds | through 3, which directly challenge Petitioner’s 2000 conviction, are not 4 || cognizable because Petitioner is no longer “in custody” pursuant to that conviction. See 5 || id. § 2254(a). Grounds 4 and 5, which contend that prison officials failed to protect 6 || Petitioner from attacks by other prisoners, are not cognizable because they concern 7 || Petitioner’s conditions of confinement, not the fact or duration of his confinement, and 8 || therefore fall outside the “core of habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931, 9 || 934 (2016). Furthermore, because the acts complained of in Grounds 4 and 5 occurred in 10 |} 2001 and 2010, the claims are also grossly untimely. Accordingly, transfer of the Petition 11 || to another district court would be not only improper, but also futile, because no district 12 || court has jurisdiction over the Petition’s claims. 13 14 IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and Judgment shall be entered 15 || dismissing this action without prejudice. Petitioner’s request for transfer of the Petition to 16 || another district court is likewise DENIED. 17 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the 19 || Judgment herein on Petitioner at his address of record and on counsel for Respondent. 20 21 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 22 23 || DATED: — July 27, 2021 24 25 □□ KKEEZ,

STEPHEN WILSON’ □□

26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28