(HC) Morales v. Arviza

Opinion

CRISTIAN STEVE HERAS MORALES, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1283 JLT EPG ) Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, DENYING v. ) THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS ) CORPUS, TERMINATING THE MOTION TO M. ARVIZA, ) DISMISS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING THE ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 1, 15, and 25) )

Cristian Steve Heras Morales is a federal prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that the Federal Bureau of Prisons is withholding proper application of jail credit. (Doc. 1.) Respondent moved to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust, while also arguing the petition should be denied on the merits. (Doc. 15.) The magistrate judge “assum[ed], without deciding, that Petitioner’s failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies can be excused” and turned to the merits of Petitioner’s claim. (Doc. 25 at 4.) The magistrate judge found the BOP was “not withholding proper application of jail credit.” (Id. at 8; see also id. at 4-8.) Therefore, the magistrate judge determined that “Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and recommended the petition be denied. (Id.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 25 at 8.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filec objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the finding that Petitioner is not entitled tc habeas relief is supported by the record and proper analysis. Because the magistrate judge expressly declined to decide whether Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies and turned to the merits the petition, the Court declines to deny the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Rather, the Court finds the motion shall be terminated as moot, because the petition is dismissed on the merits without resolution of the exhaustion issue. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 25, 2024 (Doc. 25) are ADOPTED in par 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is terminated as MOOT. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Dated: _ September 10, 2024 ( LAW pA LU. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE