Ludwig Criss Zelaya Romero v. Director BOP Colette Peters, Warden Michael Underwood
This text of Ludwig Criss Zelaya Romero v. Director BOP Colette Peters, Warden Michael Underwood (Ludwig Criss Zelaya Romero v. Director BOP Colette Peters, Warden Michael Underwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LUDWIG CRISS ZELAYA ROMERO, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:24-270 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer DIRECTOR BOP COLETTE PETERS, ) Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown WARDEN MICHAEL UNDERWOOD, ) ) Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2026, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Christopher B. Brown on July 21, 2025, (Docket No. 21), recommending that the § 2241 habeas petition filed by Petitioner Ludwig Criss Zelaya Romero be dismissed with prejudice because he is ineligible for earned time credits due to a final order of removal from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and that the Petitioner’s appeal to the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying his motion seeking a subpoena duces tecum be denied, as moot, and directed that objections were due within 14 days such that objections for non-ECF users were due by August 5, 2025, the Petitioner’s Objections dated August 3, 2025, (Docket No. 22), and his Supplement dated September 17, 2025, (Docket No. 23), this matter having been recently reassigned to the undersigned for prompt disposition, and upon independent review of the record and de novo consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s July 21, 2025 Report and Recommendation, (Docket No. 21), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections [22], as Supplemented [23] are OVERRULED. In so holding, the Court notes that Petitioner is not entitled to have earned time credits applied to his release computation as he is a non-citizen subject to a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal issued by an immigration officer and approved by a supervisor on November 5, 2024. (See Docket No. 12-3 at 2). Therefore, he is ineligible for earned time credits and his §
2241 petition must be denied for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge. See e.g., Pisman v. Warden Allenwood FCI Low, No. 23-2048, 2023 WL 6618238, at *1 (3d Cir. Oct. 11, 2023) (“Contrary to his argument, Pisman, a foreign citizen assigned a ‘deportable alien’ public safety factor on whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement has a detainer, is ineligible to use earned time credits for immediate release to residential re-entry programs or home confinement, pursuant to BOP regulations.”); Said v. Underwood, No. 3:23-CV-00164, 2025 WL 90145, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2025) (Hornak, J.) (“the Court concludes that Petitioner is ineligible to apply earned time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E) and will deny the Petition on that basis” as he is subject to a final order of removal); Montano v. Peters et al., Civ. A. No. 3:24-cv-143-NBF-KAP, Docket No. 8 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2025) (Fischer, J.) (denying § 2241 petition of inmate challenging
computation of sentence for no earned time credits as he was non-citizen paroled into the United States for drug trafficking prosecution and subject to final order of removal); Obi v. Underwood, No. 3:23-CV-274, 2025 WL 3684933, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2025) (Haines, J.) (overruling petitioner’s objections that an order for expedited removal does not constitute an order of removal under the FSA); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the July 21, 2025 Report and Recommendation [21] is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition [4], as Supplemented [7], [10] is DISMISSED, with prejudice; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal [18] challenging the Order of the Magistrate Judge denying his motion seeking a subpoena duces tecum is DENIED, as moot; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue, see Goodloe
v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 2025 WL 342189, *1, n.1 (3d Cir. 2025) (citing Reese v. Warden Phila. FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 246 (3d Cir. 2018) (“a federal prisoner challenging the denial of a § 2241 petition, he need not obtain a certificate of appealability”); and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appropriate Judgment follows.
s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer, Senior U.S. District Judge
cc/ecf: Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown
cc: LUDWIG CRISS ZELAYA ROMERO, Reg. No. 75942-054 LORETTO FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P.O. BOX 1000 CRESSON, PA 16630 (via first class mail)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ludwig Criss Zelaya Romero v. Director BOP Colette Peters, Warden Michael Underwood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludwig-criss-zelaya-romero-v-director-bop-colette-peters-warden-michael-pawd-2026.