(HC) Arellano-Cigfuego v. Warden, No. 1:2023cv01351 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign District Judge, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/21/2023. Objections to F&R due within THIRTY DAYS. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSE ARELLANO-CIGFUEGO, 11 Case No. 1:23-cv-01351-SAB-HC Petitioner, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 13 WARDEN, 14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND In the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of 21 22 Prisons’ policy (Program Statement 5410.01), alleging that the policy excludes inmates with 23 immigration detainers, such as Petitioner, from applying their First Step Act (“FSA”) Earned 1 24 Time Credits (“FTCs”). (ECF No. 1 at 6.) On October 17, 2023, the Court ordered Petitioner to 25 show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot and for failure to exhaust 26 administrative remedies. (ECF No. 6.) To date, no response has been filed, and the time for 27 doing so has passed. 28 1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 1 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases2 requires preliminary review of a 3 4 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 5 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 6 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 7 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. On November 18, 2022, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) issued Program 8 9 Statement 5410.01, First Step Act of 2018 - Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 10 U.S.C. 3632(d)(4), which precluded prisoners with immigration detainers from applying earned 11 time credits. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement No. 5410.01, First Step Act of 2018 12 Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. 3632(d)(4) (Nov. 18, 2022), 13 https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5410.01_cn2.pdf (last visited Oct. 17, 2023). On February 14 6, 2023, the BOP issued Change Notice 5410.01 CN-1. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Change Notice 15 No. 541001 CN-1 (Feb. 6, 2023), https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5410.01_cn2.pdf (last 16 visited Oct. 17, 2023).3 “As a result of Change Notice 5410.01, federal prisoners subject to 17 immigration detainers are no longer automatically prohibited from applying their earned time 18 credits.” Alatorre v. Derr, No. CV 22-00516 JMS-WRP, 2023 WL 2599546, at *5 (D. Haw. Mar. 19 22, 2023). “As a prudential matter, courts require that habeas petitioners exhaust all available 20 21 judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.” Ward v. Chavez, 678 22 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). However, because it is not a jurisdictional 23 prerequisite, exhaustion can be waived if pursuing administrative remedies would be futile. Id. 24 /// 25 2 The Court may apply any or all of these rules to habeas corpus petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. 26 § 2254. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 3 The Court takes judicial notice of the BOP program statement and change notice. Fed. R. Evid. 201. See United 27 States v. Thornton, 511 F.3d 1221, 1229 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008) (taking judicial notice of BOP program statement); United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2018) (“A court may take judicial notice of 28 undisputed matters of public record[.]”). 2 1 In the petition, Petitioner alleges: 2 Petitioner has a [sic] Immigration Detainer DHS Form I-247D lodged on him, F.C.I. Mendota is calling this a ‘Final Order of Removal.’ The Form on it’s [sic] face says DETAINER, also this form is regulated by 8 C.F.R. 287.7, 8C.F.R. 287.7 calls it a detainer and states “any authorized immigration officer may at any time issue a Form. I-247.” Petitioner does not believe that this is a “Final Order of Removal,” only a [sic] Immigration Judge can issue a Final Order of Removal. 3 4 5 6 (ECF No. 1 at 18.) Petitioner attaches the immigration detainer form, which reflects that 7 “probable cause exists that the subject is a removable alien” based on “a final order of removal 8 against the subject.” (Id. at 20 (capitalization omitted).) Petitioner contends that “[a]ny appeal to 9 the BOP would be futile, the BOP has made there [sic] position on this issue clear.” (Id. at 19.) 10 In rejecting a similar argument and finding that pursuing administrative remedies would not be 11 futile, a district judge in this Court found that such a “dispute does not concern the BOP’s 12 interpretation of a statute. Rather, it is a factual dispute. If in fact the BOP has erroneously 13 determined that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal rather than an immigration 14 detainer, an administrative appeal to correct the factual dispute should prove fruitful.” Orozco15 Orozco v. Warden, FCI Mendota, No. 1:23-cv-0908-JLT-SKO, 2023 WL 4493730, at *1 (E.D. 16 Cal. July 12, 2023). See Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that 17 requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing for habeas corpus relief in a parole 18 matter “will aid judicial review by allowing the appropriate development of a factual record in an 19 expert forum; conserve the court’s time because of the possibility that the relief applied for may 20 be granted at the administrative level; and allow the administrative agency an opportunity to 21 correct errors occurring in the course of administrative proceedings”). Moreover, the Court notes 22 that in the “context of the prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies, the issue of whether 23 ‘relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative 24 scheme’ is a key consideration.” Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 25 Montes v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 531, 537 (9th Cir. 1990)). 26 Petitioner has failed to respond to the order to show cause. As “prisoners subject to 27 immigration detainers are no longer automatically prohibited from applying their earned time 28 credits,” Alatorre, 2023 WL 2599546, at *5, it is not apparent that exhaustion of administrative 3 1 remedies would be futile given that the dispute at issue here appears to be factual in nature and 2 pursuance of administrative remedies may result in further development of the record. 3 III. 4 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 5 6 habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 7 8 Judge. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 9 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 11 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 12 Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may 13 file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 14 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 15 District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 17 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 18 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: December 21, 2023 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.