Essenfeld v. Dulgov

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Theodore E Essenfeld,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Dulgov, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-00294-TUC-JGZ
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner’s Amended
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody,
Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion for Issuance of Subpoena. (Doc. 32.)
Petitioner filed an Objection challenging all conclusions in the Report. (Doc. 34.) Petitioner
also filed a Supplemental Motion to Reopen Record, (Doc. 36), which the Court granted,
(Doc. 37).
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district
judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). District courts are not required to conduct
“any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. “[D]istrict
Case 4:25-cv-00294-JGZ Document 39 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
courts conduct proper de novo review [of a magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations] where they state they have done so, even if the order fails to specifically
address a party’s objections.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023)
(citing Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005)).
DISCUSSION1
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the record and Petitioner’s arguments.
Petitioner’s Objection raises essentially the same arguments he presented to Magistrate
Judge Rateau. As thoroughly explained by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Petitioner is not
entitled to relief. Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s claims, and Ground Two is moot. The
documents provided by Petitioner with his Supplemental Motion to Reopen Record do not
change this result. Because Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis and
proper conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Petitioner’s Objection is rejected
and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.2
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
1 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the R&R. (Doc. 32.)
2 The Court notes that a certificate of appealability is not required in this case. See Harrison
v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (there is no “statutory basis for imposing a
COA requirement on legitimate § 2241 petitions . . .” filed by federal prisoners).
Case 4:25-cv-00294-JGZ Document 39 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) is accepted and adopted in full.
2. Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 34) is
overruled.
3. Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition (Docs. 1, 3), Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 12), and Motion for Issuance of Subpoena (Doc. 20), are denied, and this case is
dismissed with prejudice.
4. All other pending motions (Docs. 17, 33) are denied as moot.
5. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in
this matter.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00294-JGZ Document 39 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3