(HC) Parrales-Mero v. Warden at FCI Mendota

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 26, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-00339·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 RONALD FABIAN PARRALES-MERO, No. 1:23-cv-00339-KES-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING THE 14 WARDEN AT FCI MENDOTA, CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Respondent. Doc. 8 16 17 18 Ronald Fabian Parrales-Mero, a federal prisoner, seeks to proceed with a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) 20 improperly denied him earned time credits under the First Step Act because he is the subject of an 21 immigration detainer. Doc. 1. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On July 25, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 24 dismiss the petition as moot. Doc. 8. The findings and recommendations stated that any 25 objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. Doc. 8 at 3. The findings and 26 recommendations were mailed to petitioner but returned as undeliverable. Petitioner did not file 27 objections, and the time to do so has passed. 28 1 Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of the case. 2 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are 3 | supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 As the petition is brought under § 2241 and the detention complained of does not arise out 5 | of a process issued by a state court, no certificate of appealability is required. See Porter v. 6 | Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114 F.3d 7 | 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997)). 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 25, 2025, Doc. 8, are ADOPTED in 10 full; 11 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot; 12 and 13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 14 Ir Is SO ORDERED. ‘6 Dated: _ August 26, 2025 4h 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(HC) Parrales-Mero v. Warden at FCI Mendota, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

(HC) Parrales-Mero v. Warden at FCI Mendota ((HC) Parrales-Mero v. Warden at FCI Mendota) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related