# (HC) Bustos v. Taylor > District Court, E.D. California · August 22, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11130957 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** August 22, 2025 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11130957 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN BUSTOS, No. 1:24-cv-00259-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT 14 T. TAYLOR, Warden, 21-Day Deadline 15 Respondent. Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 16 17 Background 18 Petitioner Juan Bustos (“Petitioner”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner filed 20 the instant habeas petition on March 1, 2024, while in custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) 21 at the Federal Correctional Institution, Mendota. (Doc. 1). The petition is before the Court for 22 preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 (“Habeas Rules”). 23 Under Habeas Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas 24 petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not 25 entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. 26 Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 27 1 The Habeas Rules may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than those brought 28 under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See Habeas Rule 1. 1 Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the 2 United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the 3 validity or constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 4 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a petitioner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that sentence’s 5 execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Brown v. 6 United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). A petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas 7 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must file the petition in the judicial district of the petitioner’s 8 custodian. Id. 9 Discussion 10 In this case, Petitioner argues the BOP improperly denied him earned time credits under 11 the First Step Act because he is the subject of an immigration detainer. (See generally Doc. 1). 12 Petitioner initiated this action while he was housed at FCI - Mendota (a correctional 13 facility within the Eastern District of California). However, a review of the BOP’s inmate locater 14 for Petitioner’s name and “BOP Register Number” reflects that Petitioner was released from 15 custody on August 2, 2024.2 Because Petitioner has been released from custody, the Court is 16 unable to grant him the relief he seeks -- specifically, the award of ETCs that would permit 17 Petitioner to seek early release. Accordingly, his petition is moot and must be dismissed. See 18 Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 1997) (release of a prisoner moots a habeas 19 corpus case); Johnson v. Matevousian, 745 Fed. Appx. 780, 781 (9th Cir. 2018) (same); see also, 20 e.g., Sila v. Warden, No. EDCV 22-1632 RSWL (AS), 2023 WL 2504476, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Feb 21 13, 2023) (“Because Petitioner has now been released from BOP custody, the relief sought in the 22 Petition is moot, and no further relief remains to be granted in this case. Indeed, even if Petitioner 23 is currently on supervised release and seeks to apply First Step Act credits to reduce his term of 24 supervised release, that relief is unavailable here”) (citing cases). 25 2 See www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited August 22, 2025). See also Daniels-Hall v. 26 National Edu. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010) (“It is appropriate to take judicial 27 notice of this information, as it was made publicly available by government entities ... and neither party disputes the authenticity of the web sites or the accuracy of the information displayed [ ] 28 therein.”) 1 Conclusion and Findings/Recommendation 2 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a U.S. 3 | District Judge to this action. 4 Further, for the reasons stated above, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the 5 || petition be dismissed without prejudice as being mooted by Petitioner’s release from custody. 6 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. District Judge 7 | assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 21 days after 8 | being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner may file written 9 | objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 10 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 11 || leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 12 | Objections. To the extent Petitioner wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), he should reference the 13 | exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 14 | reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be 15 | disregarded by the U.S. District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 16 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)()(C). Any failure by Petitioner to file any objections within the 17 | specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 18 | F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 19 | IT IS SOORDERED. *0 | Dated: _ August 22, 2025 | hr 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11130957. Public record. Not legal advice.