Jack Benjamin Hessiani v. Warden

Opinion

JACK BENJAMIN HESSIANI, Case No. 5:24-cv-01034-JWH-SSC

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

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

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