Dustin Joseph v. Warden, FCI-Mendota

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00800
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUSTIN JOSEPH, No. 1:25-cv-00800 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 11)

14 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, (Doc. 9), GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT 15 OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING Respondent. CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 16 AND CLOSE CASE

17 [NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS REQUIRED] 18

19 Dustin Joseph is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 20 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a 21 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On November 14, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 23 Recommendations to deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss and grant the petition on its merits. 24 (Docs. 9, 11.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified 25 them that any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 11.) The Court advised the parties that 26 the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 27 appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No party has 28 1 filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. 2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has performed a de novo review of this 3 case. The Court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendations to reach the merits of the 4 petition, deny respondent’s motion, grant the petition, and direct respondent to “recalculate 5 Petitioner’s sentence using December 21, 2023, as the correct start date on which Petitioner 6 became eligible to earn FSA [First Step Act] credits.” As the magistrate judge explains in the 7 findings and recommendations, 28 C.F.R. § 523.42(a) “conflicts with the plain language of 8 18 U.S.C. § 3362(d)(4)(B) and 3585(a)” by effectively precluding inmates from becoming 9 “eligible” to earn FSA credits when their sentence “commences” under the definition Congress 10 enacted. (Doc. 11 at 5.) Respondent does not argue otherwise, and other courts have concluded 11 similarly. See, e.g., Sharma v. Peters, 756 F. Supp. 3d 1271, 1282 (M.D. Ala. 2024) (collecting 12 authority and concluding that § 523.42(a) “adds a layer of eligibility not found in the statute” and 13 thus “conflicts with its express language”). 14 The Court need not and does not consider, however, whether the regulation in question is 15 entitled to any form of deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 16 Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which the Supreme Court overruled in Loper Bright 17 Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412 (2024). (Cf. Doc. 11 at 6–7 (considering whether 18 regulatory provision in question is entitled to “Chevron deference”).) The issue here is “legal 19 interpretation” of a statute, which is “the province and duty of the judicial department.” Loper 20 Bright, 603 U.S. at 412 (citations and quotation marks omitted)). The Court also expresses no 21 view on whether Petitioner has in fact “successfully completed evidence-based recidivism 22 programming or productive activities” under the FSA or was “successfully participating in” 23 programming and activities under the applicable regulations at any particular time after he 24 became “eligible.” 25 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 26 because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of 27 arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th 28 Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 1 | 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 14, 2025, (Doc. 11), are 3 ADOPTED in part as explained above. 4 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9), is DENIED. 5 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED. 6 4. Respondent is DIRECTED to recalculate Petitioner’s sentence using December 7 | 21, 2023, as the correct start date on which Petitioner became eligible to earn FSA credits. 8 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 9 6. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is required. 10 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _ January 14, 2026 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28