Fernandez v. Warden-FCI Beaumont Low

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION LEIF DIAZ FERNANDEZ § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24cv269 WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT LOW § ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Leif Diaz Fernandez, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable orders of this Court. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending that a motion for summary judgment filed by the respondent be granted. The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court must therefore conduct a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. Petitioner asserts two grounds for review: (1) he has not received good time credits under the First Step Act (“FSA”) and (2) his Order of Removal should be vacated. The Magistrate Judge concluded that as the respondent had adequately demonstrated petitioner was subject to an Order of Removal, he was not entitled to good time credits under the FSA. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), the Court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the Order of Removal. To support the assertion that petitioner is subject to an Order of Removal, the respondent has provided an Order of the Immigration Judge stating the petitioner has been ordered removed from the United States to Cuba. Also filed by the respondent was a Declaration from Charles E. Cobb, a Supervisory Special Agent with Immigration Customs and Enforcement. The Declaration states that the Order of the Immigration Judge filed with the Court is a true and correct copy.

In his objections, petitioner asserts that the Order of the Immigration Judge has no file markings or basis of authenticity. He also notes that the document states it is a summary of the oral decision entered on February 26, 2013, and that if the proceedings should be appealed or reopened, the oral decision will become the official opinion in the case. Accordingly, petitioner contends the Order of the Immigration Judge is not admissible. The declaration of Supervisory Special Agent Cobb is sufficient to demonstrate the authenticity of the Order of the Immigration Judge. Petitioner submits no evidence demonstrating the Order is not authentic. The Order is therefore admissible. Further, the Order of the Immigration Judge may be treated as an Order of Removal. Villegas v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650, 655 (6th Cir. 2010). Based on the record, there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether petitioner is subject to an order of removal. As a result, for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, petitioner’s grounds for review are without merit. ORDER Accordingly, petitioner’s objections [Dkt. 26] are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 23] is ADOPTED. The motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 5] is GRANTED. A final judgment will be entered denying the petition.

SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2025.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge