Warden

(HC) Rubio v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 15, 20232:23-cv-00983California601 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CESAR GARFIO RUBIO, No. 2:23-cv-00983-CKD P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND WARDEN, FCI HERLONG, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The filing fee for this action has been paid. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See also Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (permitting district courts to apply the Habeas Rules to § 2241 proceedings). The court has conducted that review and concludes that summary dismissal is warranted. A review of the docket in this case indicates that petitioner submitted the pending § 2241 petition to prison authorities for mailing on April 25, 2023. …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.