Benji Macaulay v. B. Birkholz, Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-10058
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 BENJI MACAULAY, ) No. 2:25-cv-10058-AH-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 13 v. ) ) DISMISSAL 14 ) ) 15 B. BIRKHOLZ, Warden, ) ) ) 16 Respondent. ) ) 17 18 On October 20, Benji Macaulay (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner serving 19 a sentence imposed in United States v. Benji Macaulay, (C.D. Cal.) Case. No. 20 2:24-cr-00083-JAK, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in 21 Federal Custody (Dkt. 1, “Petition” or “Pet.”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 22 asserting that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has refused to apply First 23 Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”) earned time credits (“ETCs”) that, he claims, would 24 have made him eligible for placement at a halfway house and eligible for an 25 earlier release date. Petitioner contends “Prison Staff” advised him that his 26 FSA ETCs were denied because of “‘an ICE detainer,’” alternatively described 27 as a “final order of removal,” copies of which were not provided to him. Pet. at 28 3, 5 (CM/ECF pagination). 1 As the existence of a Final Order of Removal appeared to be a material 2 ||issue in the action, on October 21, 2025, the Court directed that if a Final 3 || Order of Removal existed as to Petitioner, Respondent was to file it within 7 4 || days. Id. On October 22, 2025, Respondent filed a Final Order of Removal as 5 ||to Petitioner. Dkt. 8-1. That Final Order of Removal reflects that is was issued 6 || by an Immigration Judge on December 13, 2004, and orders Petitioner to be 7 ||removed from the United States to Nigeria. Id. 8 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E), “[a] prisoner is ineligible to apply time 9 || credits under subparagraph (C) [of the FSA] if the prisoner is the subject of a 10 || final order of removal under any provision of the immigration laws”; see also 11 C.F.R. § 523.44(a)(2) (“[flor any inmate eligible to earn FSA Time Credits” 12 || who is “[s]ubject to a final order of removal under immigration laws. . . the 13 ||[BOP] may not apply FSA Time Credits toward prerelease custody or early 14 || transfer to supervised release”); Cabrera-Huato v. USP Lompoc Warden, 2024 15 || WL 3467801, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2024), accepted by 2024 WL 3835049 16 ||(C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2024); Felix-Felix v. Engleman, 2023 WL 3903817, at *3 17 ||(C.D. Cal. May 11, 2023), accepted by 2023 WL 3901778 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 18 2023). 19 As it appears Petitioner is subject to a Final Order of Removal, it appears 20 || he is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Nonetheless, the Court will afford 21 || Petitioner an opportunity to respond. As such, Petitioner is Ordered to Show 22 || Cause in writing, within 14 days from the date of this Order, why the Petition 23 ||should not be dismissed due Petitioner’s being subject to a Final Order of 24 ||Removal, rendering him ineligible to apply time credits earned under the FSA. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. sf de 26 ||Dated: October 28, 2025 Lie a HN D. EARLY United States Magistrate Judge 28