Essenfeld v. Dulgov

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2026
• Docket: 26-934
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THEODORE E. ESSENFELD, AKA No. 26-934 Theordore E. Essenfeld, D.C. No. 4:25-cv-00294-JGZ Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

DULGOV, Warden; UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as any Interim Warden; and any Acting Warden at the Federal Corrections Institution, Safford, AZ,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 26, 2026**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Theodore E. Essenfeld appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th

Cir. 2018), we affirm.

Essenfeld contends that he is entitled to First Step Act (“FSA”) time credits

from the date of his sentencing through the date he arrived at his designated

facility. We agree with the district court that this claim is unexhausted and that

Essenfeld did not show it would have been futile to exhaust administrative

remedies. See Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). The district

court also correctly determined that Essenfeld had not shown he had completed

programming qualifying for FSA time credits during the period in question. We

decline to address arguments that Essenfeld did not properly raise before the

district court. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 508 (9th Cir. 1994).

The motions for judicial notice are denied. The emergency motion to stay

disciplinary sanctions and prevent remand to secure custody is denied. See Fed. R.

App. P. 8(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(A)(i); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 425-26 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 26-934