(HC) Madi v. Acting Warden of USP Atwater

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW JOSEPH MADI, Case No. 1:24-cv-00925 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 WARDEN, USP-ATWATER, HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 15 Respondent. AND CLOSE CASE

16 (Docs. 10, 12) 17 Andrew Joseph Madi is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting the Bureau of Prisons 19 wrongfully denied Petitioner’s eligibility for First Step Earned Time Credits. (Doc. 1.) 20 Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that “BOP records indicate Petitioner — 21 contrary to his claim that he is barred FSA ETC earning and award due to his offense of 22 conviction — is eligible to earn and to apply ETCs.” (Doc. 10 at 2.) 23 The magistrate judge found the exhibits submitted by Respondent show that “upon receipt 24 of the petition, BOP Agency Counsel reviewed Petitioner’s records and determined that Petitioner 25 should in fact be deemed eligible to earn FSA credits.” (Doc. 12 at 10-1 at 3.) The exhibits also 26 establish “the records were corrected as of October 10, 2024, to reflect Petitioner is FSA eligible 27 and has earned 365 days of FSA credits with a new projected release date of April 5, 2031.” (Id. 28 at 2.) The magistrate judge found that because Petitioner was granted the relief requested, “the ene en ee IIE II IE NII IRIE I OS GEES

1 | underlying matter is moot.” (/d.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant 2 | Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (/d. at 3.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 4 | any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 12 at 3.) The Court advised the parties that the 5 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 6 | Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Petitioner nor 7 | Respondent filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 9 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 10 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 13, 2024, (Doc. 12), are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10), is GRANTED. 14 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. 15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 16 5. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is □□□□□□□□□□ 17 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | Dated: □ January 16, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 ! A certificate of appealability will not be required because this is an order addressing a petition for writ of habeas 27 | corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo 28 v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (Sth Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).