Rodolfo Moreno v. Eric Rardin

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedJune 2, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-14124
StatusUnknown

This text of Rodolfo Moreno v. Eric Rardin (Rodolfo Moreno v. Eric Rardin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rodolfo Moreno v. Eric Rardin, (E.D. Mich. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RODOLFO MORENO, Petitioner, Case No. 2:25-cv-14124 v. Hon. Jonathan J.C. Grey ERIC RARDIN,

Respondent, _________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS Petitioner Rodolfo Moreno, currently serving a sentence of home confinement through the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Moreno challenges the BOP’s refusal to apply his earned time credits under the First Step Act (“FSA”) toward early release from home

confinement to begin serving his term of supervised release. For the following reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND

In 2007, Moreno pleaded guilty and was later sentenced to 120 months’ incarceration for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine and marijuana. United States v. Moreno, Case No. 07-cr-

20222–6 (E.D. Mich.), ECF No. 275. In 2015, Moreno committed additional crimes while on home confinement for his 2007 conviction. Moreno pleaded guilty and was

sentenced to an additional 151 months of incarceration followed by a four- year term of supervised release for conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession with the intent to distribute heroin. United States v. Moreno,

No. 15-cr-20562-6 (E.D. Mich.), ECF No. 36. After serving the majority of his aggregated 271-month sentence in BOP custody, Moreno was moved to home confinement on October 21,

2024. (ECF No. 7-1, PageID.57, 67.) Moreno’s statutory release date was set for August 20, 2027, but his current projected FSA release date is August 20, 2026 due to the BOP applying 365 days of FSA credits. (Id. at

PageID.57, 65.) Moreno’s full-term release date is November 11, 2030. (Id.) Moreno filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, claiming that he is entitled to additional credit under the FSA for time spent in prerelease custody and requests that he begin his term of supervised release early. II. DISCUSSION

Moreno alleges that the BOP wrongly denied him FSA credits. Respondent first argues that the petition should be dismissed because Moreno failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his

habeas petition. Federal inmates are normally required to exhaust administrative remedies for their claims before filing a § 2241 habeas corpus petition.

Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465, 466 (6th Cir. 2013). The Sixth Circuit, however, has indicated that “the habeas exhaustion requirement is not without exception,” nor “statutorily required.” Fazzini v. Northeast Ohio

Corr. Ctr., 473 F.3d 229, 235–236 (6th Cir. 2006). “If a petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing a § 2241 petition, the District Court may in its discretion either ‘excuse the faulty

exhaustion and reach the merits, or require the petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies before proceeding in court.’” Ridley v. Smith, 179 F. App’x 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d

533, 535 (9th Cir.1990), abrogated in part on other grounds by Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995)). The Court need not decide the exhaustion issue and instead proceeds directly to the merits of the petition. See Qaiyim v. Farley, No. 1:11cv430, 2011 WL 3566852, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug.

15, 2011). As stated below, Moreno is not entitled to relief on his claim. Eligible federal inmates—i.e., those whose convictions do not exclude them from receiving FSA benefits—may earn First Step Time

Act Credits or FTCs. An eligible inmate can earn 10 FTCs “for every 30 days of successful participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(i). An

inmate can earn an additional 5 FTCs during those 30 days if: (1) his or her recidivism-risk rating is minimum or low, and (2) his or her risk of recidivism has not increased for two consecutive recidivism assessments

conducted by the BOP. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(ii); see also 28 C.F.R. § 523.42(c)(2). A maximum of 365 days of FTCs may be applied towards a

prisoner’s early transfer to supervised release, effectively shortening their sentence by up to one year. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(3); 28 C.F.R. § 523.44(d). Eligible prisoners may have any remaining FTCs applied

towards early transfer to prerelease custody, either in a residential reentry center or home confinement. 28 C.F.R. § 523.44(c). This Court notes at the outset that inmates have no right under the

federal constitution to earn or receive sentencing credits. See Moore v. Hofbauer, 144 F. Supp. 2d 877, 882 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citing Hansard v. Barrett, 980 F.2d 1059, 1062 (6th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, a federal

prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in earning future sentence credits. See Sotherland v. Myers, 41 F. App’x 752, 753 (6th Cir. 2002). “Courts that have considered the issue ‘have

routinely found that a federal inmate does not have a liberty interest in receiving credits under the First Step Act.’” Fontanez v. Rardin, No. 2:23- cv-12415, 2024 WL 1776338, at * 3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2024) (quoting

Sedlacek v. Rardin, No. 2:23-cv-11899, 2024 WL 965607, at * 2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2024)); see also Cheng v. United States, 725 F. Supp. 3d 432, 440 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (Taiwanese prisoner subject to removal under

the immigration laws upon completion of his prison term did not have a liberty interest in receiving FSA credits). A federal prisoner is eligible to receive FSA benefits “when his time

credits complete his term of imprisonment.” Hargrove v. Healy, 155 F.4th 530, 534 (6th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, No. 25-818, 2026 WL 1052155 (U.S. Apr. 20, 2026) (emphasis in original) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(1)(A)). Section 3624(g)(3) indicates that where a federal prisoner is sentenced to

supervised release, as was Moreno, “the Director of [BOP] may transfer the prisoner to begin any such term of supervised release at an earlier date, not to exceed 12 months, based on the application of time credits

under section 3632.” Id. (emphasis in original). These “time credits help a prisoner to start his term of supervised release at an earlier date, not end his term of supervised release at an earlier date.” Id. (emphasis in

original).

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

Related

Reno v. Koray
515 U.S. 50 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Darrell Lee Brown v. Richard H. Rison, Warden
895 F.2d 533 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Hansard v. Barrett
980 F.2d 1059 (Sixth Circuit, 1992)
Witham v. United States
355 F.3d 501 (Sixth Circuit, 2004)
James Luedtke v. David Berkebile
704 F.3d 465 (Sixth Circuit, 2013)
Moore v. Hofbauer
144 F. Supp. 2d 877 (E.D. Michigan, 2001)
Foster v. Ludwick
208 F. Supp. 2d 750 (E.D. Michigan, 2002)
Ridley v. Smith
179 F. App'x 109 (Third Circuit, 2006)
Sotherland v. Myers
41 F. App'x 752 (Sixth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rodolfo Moreno v. Eric Rardin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodolfo-moreno-v-eric-rardin-mied-2026.