(HC) McKenzie-Gainza v. FCI Mendota Warden ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SILVIO MCKENZIE-GAINZA, No. 1:23-cv-0187 JLT SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 FCI MENDOTA WARDEN, HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE 15 Respondent. (Docs. 10, 12) 16 17 Silvio McKenzie-Gainza is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner asserts the Bureau of Prisons failed to 19 apply Petitioner’s earned time credits properly under the First Step Act. (Doc. 1 at 6.) 20 Respondent moved to dismiss, asserting there is no case or controversy because Petitioner credits 21 have been applied, which resulted in an advanced release date from BOP custody. (Doc. 10 at 3.) 22 The assigned magistrate judge found, “the record establishes Petitioner is eligible to apply 23 [time credits], which has resulted in an advanced projected release date of February 1, 2027, 24 when 365 days of FSA credits are applied.” (Doc. 12 at 2.) As a result, the magistrate judge 25 determined that “Petitioner has received the remedy he requested in his petition,” and agreed that 26 “no case or controversy exists.” (Id.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended the 27 motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed as moot. (Id.) 28 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that 1 | any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 12 at 2.) The Court also informed the parties that 2 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 | Court’s order.” (d. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter 4 | v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Petitioner did not file objections, and the time 5 | to do has expired. 6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 7 | Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 8 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 25, 2023 (Doc. 12) are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. 12 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 13 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: _ September 20, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28