using Rule 4 to evaluate 5 motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies
How later courts described this case
- using Rule 4 to evaluate 5 motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JUAN GALINDO-MURILLO, No. 2:23-cv-00645-EFB (HC)
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 WARDEN, FCI-HERLONG,
15 Respondent.
16
17 Petitioner is a former federal prisoner proceeding without counsel in this petition for writ
18 of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Before the court is respondent’s
19 motion to dismiss the petition (ECF No. 15), to which petitioner has filed an opposition. ECF
20 No. 17. For the reasons set forth below, the motion must be granted.
21 I. The Petition
22 When petitioner commenced this action on April 6, 2023, he was confined to federal
23 prison at Federal Correctional Institution—Herlong.1 ECF No. 1 at 1. Petitioner alleges that
24 respondent violated the “First Step Act” (18 U.S.C. §§ 3632, 3624(g)) by failing to award him
25 earned-time credits for programs he completed, which entitled him to release 365 days early. Id.
26 at 1-2. Petitioner asserts that, based on his tentative release date of December 20, 2023, he was
27
1 The court takes judicial notice of federal records indicating that petitioner was released
28 from prison on December 22, 2023. See January 8, 2024 docket notation.
1 entitled to release on December 20, 2022.2 Id. at 2; ECF No. 17 at 2.
2 II. Motion to Dismiss
3 The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer.
4 See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to evaluate
5 motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies). Here, respondent contends that
6 that the petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Respondent
7 further argues that petitioner fails to state a § 2241 claim, as he has no constitutional or statutory
8 basis to claim First Sentence Act (FSA) sentence offsets because he is subject to a final order of
9 removal from another federal court.
10 III. Legal Standards
11 A. Section 2241
12 Federal inmates have two avenues for pursuing habeas corpus relief. First, a challenge to
13 a federal prisoner’s conviction or sentence can be raised via a motion to vacate, set aside, or
14 correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 motions are filed in the judicial
15 district where the conviction occurred. Alternatively, a federal inmate challenging the manner,
16 location, or conditions involved in the execution of their sentence, may file a habeas corpus
17 petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir.
18 2000). Jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition lies in the district of the prisoner’s confinement.
19 B. First Step Act
20 The First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”) made several important changes to the duration of
21 federal prison sentences. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. It created an evidence-based
22 recidivism reduction program that incentivizes inmates to participate in and complete programs
23 and productive activities by awarding them “10 days of time credits ...” and “an additional 5 days
24
2 For purposes of these findings and recommendations, the court assumes arguendo that
25
petitioner’s claim is not mooted by his release from prison. The Ninth Circuit held in Mujahid v.
Daniels that a § 2241 petition seeking immediate release is not mooted by the petitioner’s release
26
from custody where (1) the petitioner’s sentence includes a term of supervised release; and (2)
27 there is a “possibility” that the sentencing court might use its discretion to reduce the petitioner’s
term of supervised release to compensate for a period of over-incarceration. 413 F.3d 991, 994-95
28 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gunderson v. Hood, 268 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001)).
1 of time credits for every 30 days of successful participation” if the prisoner is classified as a
2 minimum or low risk of recidivism. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4). By January 15, 2020, the Bureau of
3 Prisons (BOP) was required to conduct an initial intake risk and needs assessment for each
4 prisoner and “begin to assign prisoners to appropriate evidence-based recidivism reduction
5 programs based on that determination.” 18 U.S.C. 3621(h). The BOP implemented its final
6 agency rules regarding the earning and awarding of earned time credits (ETCs) under the First
7 Step Act on January 19, 2022. See 87 Fed. Reg. 2,705-01, 2022 WL 159155 (F.R.) (codified at
8 28 C.F.R. §§ 523.40-523.44) (awarding ten days of FSA time credits “[f]or every thirty-day
9 period that an eligible inmate successfully participates in [Evidence Based Recidivism Reduction
10 Programs (“EBRRs”) and Productive Activities (“PAs”)].”).
11 IV. Discussion
12 Petitioner claims that he earned 365 days toward early release and was eligible to receive
13 them. ECF No. 1 at 2, 5 & 7 (Exhibits 1 & 2). He requests that the court “order the BOP to apply
14 the earned credits in accordance with the First Step Act, and to further calculate the release date
15 to reflect the proper application of these earned time credits.” Id. at 3.
16 Documents attached by respondent indicate that petitioner pled guilty to the charge of
17 distribution of heroin on January 14, 2022. ECF No. 15 at 2, citing ECF No. 15-1 (Appendix).
18 On May 13, 2022, he was sentenced to serve 37 months in BOP custody at FCI-Herlong. Id.
19 Petitioner was deemed ineligible to apply for earned-time credit under the First Step Act because
20 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) records indicated that he had a “final order of
21 removal.” Id. at 2, citing ECF No. 15-1 at 21. Assuming good time conduct, petitioner had a
22 projected release date of December 20, 2023. Id. BOP records indicate that petitioner was in fact
23 released from custody on December 22, 2023.
24 Before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a federal prisoner challenging any
25 circumstance of imprisonment must first exhaust all administrative remedies. Martinez v.
26 Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986); Chua Han Mow v. United States, 730 F.2d 1308,
27 1313 (9th Cir. 1984); Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983). The requirement that
28 federal prisoners exhaust administrative remedies before filing a habeas corpus petition was
1 judicially created; it is not a statutory requirement. Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir.
2 1990). Thus, “because exhaustion is not required by statute, it is not jurisdictional.” Id. If
3 petitioner has not properly exhausted his claims, the district court, in its discretion, may either
4 “excuse the faulty exhaustion and reach the merits or require the petitioner to exhaust his
5 administrative remedies before proceeding in court.” The exhaustion requirement “is not lightly
6 to be disregarded.” Murillo v. Mathews, 588 F.2d 759, 762, n.8 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted).
7 In a declaration attached to the motion to dismiss, BOP Paralegal Specialist Jennifer
8 Vickers states that petitioner has never requested FSA credits through the BOP’s administrative
9 remedy process, and petitioner does not dispute this or address the exhaustion requirement at all
10 in his filings. See ECF No. 15-1, Vickers Decl. at ¶ 8 (review of records indicates that petitioner
11 “has not filed any Administrative Remedy surrounding his request for [FSA] credits.”). Thus,
12 based on this record, the claim is unexhausted.
13 In addition to arguing failure to exhaust, respondent argues that petitioner fails to state a
14 claim, as he has no basis to claim FSA sentence offsets because he is subject to a deportation
15 order from another federal court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i) (“A prisoner is ineligible to
16 apply time credits . . . if the prisoner is the subject of a final order of removal under any provision
17 of the immigration laws . . . of the Immigration and Nationality Act”). Respondent asserts that
18 petitioner is ineligible for FSA credits, citing a February 22, 2022 Department of Homeland
19 Security Immigration Detainer based on a final order of removal. ECF No. 15-1, Vickers Decl. at
20 ¶ 6, citing ECF No. 15-1 at 21.3
21 In Salazar v. Warden, FCI-Mendota, No. 1:23-cv-00039-SKO (HC), 2023 WL 3254633,
22 at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2023), another court in this district noted a 2023 change to BOP policy
23 regarding deportation orders:
24 Before November 18, 2022, the BOP took the position that inmates
with detainers were ineligible for FSA credits. On November 18,
25 2022, the BOP issued Program Statement 5410.01 which modified
the BOP procedures to allow inmates with detainers to earn FTCs;
26 inmates could not have those FTCs applied until the detainers were
resolved. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program
27
28 3 Page citations refer to page numbers assigned by the court’s docketing system.
1 Statement No. 5410.01, First Step Act of 2018 - Time Credits:
Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. 3632(d)(4), at 17
2 (Nov. 18, 2022),
https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5410_01.pdf[.])
3
Recently, on February 6, 2023, the BOP issued a change notice to
4 the program statement in which the BOP deleted the requirement
that inmates must have no detainers to have FTCs applied to their
5 sentence. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Change
Notice to Program Statement No. 5410.01, First Step Act of 2018 -
6 Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C.
3632(d)(4) (Feb.6,2023),
7 https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5410.01_cn.pdf [.])
8 See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Change Notice to Program Statement No.
9 5410.01, First Step Act of 2018 - Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C.
10 3632(d)(4) at 14 (last visited Jan. 24. 2024). The Salazar court found that a § 2241 petitioner
11 with an order of deportation was “no longer barred from earning FTCs and having them applied
12 to his sentence due to the detainer.” 2023 WL 3254633 at *3. The court also found that “the
13 exhaustion requirement should not be excused in this case” because, given the policy change,
14 exhaustion of administrative remedies would not have been futile. Id. at *4.
15 Here, petitioner has made no attempt to exhaust administrative remedies as to his claim,
16 nor offers any explanation why he failed to do so. In his petition, he simply argues that he was
17 “not subject to any final order of deportation[.]” ECF No. 1 at 2 (emphasis in original). In
18 opposition to the motion, he asserts that BOP has failed to furnish him with a copy of the
19 deportation order. ECF No. 17 at 3. Petitioner has since been released from prison.4
20 Considering the foregoing, the respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted and the
21 petition dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See, e.g.,
22 Mohammad v. Thompson, No. 2:21-cv-02162-TLN-CKD P, 2022 WL 4484545 at *3 (E.D. Cal.
23 Sept. 27, 2022 ) (“The BOP should be given the first opportunity to address petitioner’s argument
24 that he is entitled to a total of 180 days of earned time credits. Thus, the court will not excuse
25 petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.”), citing Chua Han Mow, 730 F.2d at
26
27 4 To date, petitioner has not filed a change of address with this court. See Local Rule
182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address
28 change.
1 |} 1313 (emphasizing that a federal inmate is required to exhaust the BOP’s administrative
2 || procedures before seeking habeas relief in order to preserve an adequate record for judicial
3 || review).
4 V. Conclusion
5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Clerk of Court shall assign a district
6 Judge to this action.
7 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
8 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) be GRANTED;
9 2. The petition (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice; and
10 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
13 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
14 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
15 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
16 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
17 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)
19 | DATED: February 22, 2024 Boule on / Z Bt Ln 4
20 EDMUND F, BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28