The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BREYON BROWN, No. 2:21-cv-1816 TLN DB P
12 Petitioner,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 PAUL THOMPSON, et al.,
15 Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner, proceeds without counsel with a petition for writ of habeas
18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. By order filed April 12, 2022, the undersigned screened the
19 petition and notified petitioner it plainly appeared the petition was subject to dismissal because
20 the claim presented is unripe and because petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies.
21 Petitioner was granted 30 days to file an amended petition. (ECF No. 6.) The 30 period has
22 expired, and petitioner has not filed an amended petition or otherwise responded to the court’s
23 order.
24 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the April 12, 2022 screening order (ECF No. 6),
25 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:
26 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) be
27 dismissed; and
28 ////
1 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case.
2 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
3 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 21 days after
4 | being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections
5 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
6 | and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
7 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153
8 | (9th Cir. 1991).
9 | Dated: June 17, 2022
10
11
brow1816.dism.fr 'BORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28