(HC) Kelley v. Brewer, No. 2:2022cv01777 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 05/12/2023 ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING 11 Motion to Dismiss to the extent that it argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because petitioner was not in custody at the time of filing and GRANTING 11 Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of mootness; DISMISSING 1 Petitioner's Application for a writ of Habeas Corpus as moot. CASE CLOSED. (Rodriguez, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TROY X. KELLEY, Petitioner, 12 v. 13 14 No. 2:22-cv-01777-DJC-CKD P ORDER DAVID BREWER, Respondent. 15 16 17 Petitioner, a former federal inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this application 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On April 18, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 22 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 23 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 24 days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 26 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully 27 reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by proper analysis. While the Court appreciates 1 1 Petitioner’s frustration that there was a narrow window in which to challenge the 2 calculation of his earned time credits under the First Step Act, not all perceived 3 wrongs are capable of being redressed in federal courts of limited jurisdiction. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 18, 2023, are adopted in full; 6 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is denied to the extent that it 7 argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because petitioner was not in custody at the 8 time of filing; 3. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is granted on the grounds of mootness; 9 10 and, 4. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 11 12 § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed as moot. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: May 12, 2023 Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 12/kell1777.805.hc.2241 24 25 26 27 28 2

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.