Jack Benjamin Hessiani v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-01034
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACK BENJAMIN HESSIANI, Case No. 5:24-cv-01034-JWH-SSC

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 14 WARDEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of 2 the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United States 3 Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner’s objections to the Report and 4 Recommendation.1 The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those 5 portions of the R&R to which Petitioner has objected. 6 The R&R recommends the grant of Respondent’s motion to dismiss and 7 the dismissal of this action with prejudice. Petitioner’s objections do not merit 8 any change to the R&R’s findings or recommendations. 9 Petitioner objects that his federal sentence was miscalculated and that he 10 is entitled to a credit of eight months and 29 days.2 The Court agrees with the 11 Report that Petitioner is not entitled to an additional eight months and 29 days 12 of custody credit.3 By the time that Petitioner was sentenced in the California 13 case, he had already served eight months and 29 days of his Nevada sentence.4 14 Although the California sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the 15 Nevada sentence, “the concurrency could only be applied prospectively from the 16 date of the California sentence.”5 Moreover, the time that Petitioner had served 17 on his earlier Nevada sentence did not count as presentence credits toward his 18 California sentence.6 Petitioner’s objections merely repeat his claim without 19 addressing the relevant authorities or the R&R’s reasoning. 20 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 21

1 Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) [ECF No. 20]; Obj. to R&R 22 (the “Objection”)[ECF No. 30]. 23 2 Objection 1-3. 24 3 R&R 6:14-20. 25 4 Id. at 9:6-9. 26 5 Id. at 9:9-24 (citing Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1248 n.8 (9th Cir. 27 2011), and similar district court cases). 1 1. The findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the R&R 2|| are ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. 3 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss’ is GRANTED. 4 3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5 4. Judgment will be entered accordingly. 6 IT ISSO ORDERED. VM g|| Dated: October 7, 2025 . 9 {SNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28\| 7 Resp.’s Motion to Transfer, Dismiss, or Deny [ECF No. 15].