Sierra v. Jacquez

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 13, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01509
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 SIEGFRED SIERRA, Case No. C22-1509-RSL-BAT 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING 11 v. PETITIONER’S § 2241 12 PETITION I. JACQUEZ (Warden, FDC SeaTac) and C.

13 PETERS (Director of the BOP), 14 Respondents. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Tsuchida’s Report and 17 Recommendation (Dkt. # 9), respondents’ objections (Dkt. # 10), petitioner’s objections (Dkt. 18 # 12), and respondents’ notice (Dkt. # 14). 19 Petitioner, Siegfred Sierra, requested the Court order his immediate release from Federal 20 Detention Center SeaTac (FDC SeaTac) under 28 U.S.C § 2241, based upon his calculation of 21 the credits he has earned under the First Step Act (FSA). See Dkt. #3. In response, respondents 22 moved to dismiss the § 2241 petition arguing petitioner (1) failed to exhaust his administrative 23 remedies; (2) erroneously contended the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) must grant FSA time credits 24 to prisoners who are subject to an immigration detainer but not a final order of removal; and (3) 25 failed to meet his burden to show he has a right to early release. See Dkt. # 8. In the Report and 26 Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge reasoned “Petitioner is not ineligible under 18 U.S.C. § 27 3632(d)(4)(E)(i) or (ii) from receiving or earning FSA time credits because he is not subject to a 28 final order or removal,” however the Report recommended declining petitioner’s request for 1 immediate release because it concluded that petitioner had failed to establish he had earned 2 sufficient FSA time credits. 3 In their objection, respondents noted that since their response was filed, the “BOP 4 decided to undertake a nationwide review of the provisions of its Program Statement on First 5 Step Act time credits that treated detainers as a basis for disallowing the application of credits to 6 an inmate’s sentence.” Dkt. # 10 at 1-2. In light of this pending review, respondents represented 7 that they were in the process of obtaining a waiver for petitioner from BOP’s current Program 8 Statement that bars defendants subject to immigration detainers from having First Step Act time 9 credits applied to their sentences. Id. at 2. Respondents represented that (1) they expected 10 petitioner would be released once the waiver was completed and (2) they expected Sierra to be 11 released by the end of this work week. Id. 12 On January 12, 2023, respondents filed a notice stating that they “now believe that the 13 waiver will not be processed by the end of this work week. For that reason and in light of 14 respondents’ concession that Sierra should be credited with 151 days of First Step Act time 15 credits once the waiver is completed, respondents waive the administrative exhaustion 16 requirement as to Sierra and concede that this Court should grant Sierra’s 2241 petition and 17 direct BOP to release him.” Dkt. # 14. 18 Having reviewed the complete record, the Report and Recommendation, and the parties’ 19 subsequent filings, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation’s reasoning and 20 conclusion that petitioner is not ineligible under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i) or (ii) from 21 receiving or earning FSA time credits because he is not subject to a final order or removal.1 The 22 Court further finds that, in light of the parties’ recent filings, petitioner is entitled to immediate 23 release. The Court therefore GRANTS petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and directs the 24 BOP to release him immediately. 25 26

27 1 The Court notes a minor error in the R&R: on page 6, lines 20, 21 & 23 and page 7, line 13, the 28 R&R refers to “§ 3626.” These citations should be to § 3632. 1 The Court further ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation’s reasoning and conclusion 2 as to petitioner’s request for “financial compensation,” and accordingly declines petitioner’s 3 request. See Christian v. Norwood, 376 Fed. Appx. 725, 726 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Preiser v. 4 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973) (“[A] § 2241 petition is not the proper vehicle for 5 obtaining monetary damages.”). 6 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge Tsuchida. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

10 DATED this 13th day of January, 2023. 11

12 A 13

14 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28