(HC) Abramian v. Taylor

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARNO ABRAMIAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-1207 JLT SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 v. HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND, et al., (Docs. 11, 22) 16 Respondents. 17 18 Arno Abramian is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner asserts that the Bureau 20 of Prisons has not applied Earned Time Credits (“ETC”) and seeks an order directing the BOP to 21 award ETCs. (See Doc. 4.) Respondents move to dismiss the petition, arguing Petitioner did not 22 exhaust his administrative remedies and, as “a non-citizen who suffered a final order of removal,” 23 lacks standing for his claim. (Doc. 11.) Respondent filed order of the immigration judge in 24 support of the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 19.) 25 As an initial matter, the magistrate judge found “the exhaustion requirement should be 26 excused in this case due to futility because Respondent has determined that Petitioner is 27 ‘jurisdictionally and statutorily barred from FSA ETC sentence-offsets due to a final order of 28 removal.’” (Doc. 22 at 3, quoting Doc. 11 at 3.) Nevertheless, the magistrate judge observed that 1 | a final order of removal directs Petitioner’s removal from the United States and Petitioner “is 2 | ineligible to apply First Step Act time credits.” (/d. at 4.) Therefore, the magistrate judge found 3 | “Petitioner cannot obtain the relief he seeks in the petition,” and recommended the Court grant 4 | Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (/d.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified 6 | Petitioner that any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 22 at 5.) The Court advised the 7 | parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 8 | the District Court’s order.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 9 | 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 10 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 11 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 12 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 10, 2025 (Doc. 22) are 14 ADOPTED in full. 15 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. 16 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _duly 29, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28