DESOUZA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IGOR DESOUZA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 3:25-257

) Judge Nora Barry Fischer

MICHAEL UNDERWOOD, WARDEN, FCI ) Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto

LORETTO, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of January, 2026, upon consideration of the Report and

Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on December 9, 2025,

(Docket No. 19), recommending that the § 2241 habeas petition filed by Petitioner Igor Desouza

against Warden Underwood at FCI Loretto et al. be denied as he is ineligible for earned time credits

due to his conviction for possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) and he failed to exhaust administrative

remedies as to his claims challenging his loss of good time credits as a disciplinary sanction which

is otherwise supported by some evidence in the record, and directed that objections were due within

14 days such that objections by non-ECF users were due by December 26, 2025, Petitioner’s

Objections which were timely filed, (Docket No. 20), this matter having been recently reassigned

to the undersigned for prompt disposition, and upon independent review of the record and de novo

consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s December 9, 2025 Report and Recommendation, (Docket

No. 19), which is adopted as the Opinion of the Court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections [20] are OVERRULED, as the

record plainly established that he was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or

more of fentanyl and is therefore ineligible for earned time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(lxvi).

See e.g., Regalado v. Greene, No. 1:25-CV-00054, 2025 WL 411672, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2025)

(“Here, Petitioner pled guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vi) possession

with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of Fentanyl. Regalado, No. 1:20-CR-1028-1-NMG,

Doc. 91. Therefore, despite his argument otherwise, Petitioner's underlying conviction precludes

Petitioner from accruing time credits under the FSA.”); Diaz v. Underwood, No. 3:25-CV-85, 2025

WL 3545818, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2025) (“Petitioner having been convicted of an offense

involving 400 grams or more of fentanyl was thus rightly denied ETC because his conviction

statutorily excludes him.”); Saldana v. Warden, No. 3:25-CV-02472, 2026 WL 196512, at *2 (M.D.

Pa. Jan. 26, 2026) (“Here, Saldana pled guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(B)(vi) possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of Fentanyl. Saldana, No. 1:18-

CR-00033-JL, Doc. 596. Therefore, despite his argument that the underlying conviction was not a

crime of violence, his underlying conviction regardless of [its] violence classification precludes

Saldana from accruing time credits under the FSA.”). Plaintiff’s position that the judgment only

references 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) is overruled as the description of the offense therein includes that

he was convicted of possession of 40 grams or more of fentanyl and he was plainly subject to the

penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi). See id.

Moving on, Petitioner’s objections to the recommended denial of his challenge to the loss

of good time credits due to his possession of a hazardous tool, i.e., a cell phone, are also overruled.

To that end, it is uncontested that Petitioner filed the petition shortly after he submitted his BP-11

to the General Counsel Office such that he initiated this action without exhausting administrative

remedies. (Docket No. 4). Insofar as Petitioner’s subsequent receipt of a Response from the Office

of General Counsel indicating that his appeal was rejected as it was sent to the wrong level is

sufficient to exhaust administrative remedies, the 2241 claim must be denied because he has failed

to demonstrate that he is entitled to the relief requested in light of the relevant standards of review

in challenges to prison disciplinary proceedings. See e.g., Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455,

105 S. Ct. 2768, 2774, 86 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1985) (“We hold that the requirements of due process are

satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke good

time credits.”). In this regard, the record contains evidence that a cell phone was found within

underwear under the mattress in Petitioner’s bunk and that he admitted that the cell phone was his

at a hearing. (Docket No. 18-7 at 2-5). Petitioner’s contention that the evidence should be re-

weighed differently or that a more thorough investigation should have been conducted are simply

insufficient to demonstrate an entitlement to relief. See e.g., Goodloe v. Warden Lewisburg USP,

No. 24-1170, 2025 WL 342189, at *2 (3d Cir. Jan. 30, 2025) (“while Wolff may entitle Goodloe to

present documentary evidence in his defense, it does not require the BOP to pay for testing or

otherwise conduct an investigation on Goodloe's behalf.”);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition [4] is DENIED, with prejudice;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue, see Goodloe

v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 2025 WL 342189, *1, n.1 (3d Cir. 2025) (citing Reese v. Warden Phila.

FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 246 (3d Cir. 2018) (“a federal prisoner challenging the denial of a § 2241

petition […] need not obtain a certificate of appealability”); and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appropriate Judgment follows.

s/Nora Barry Fischer

Nora Barry Fischer

Senior U.S. District Judge

cc/ecf: Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto

cc: Igor Desouza

Reg. No. 73148-509

F.C.I. Loretto

P.O. Box 1000

Cresson, PA 16630 (via first class mail)