(HC) Jennings v. Thompson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN JENNINGS, Case No. 2:21-cv-01666-TLN-JDP (HC) 11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 v. 13 PAUL THOMPSON, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner John Jennings, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. He argues that the Bureau of Prisons has failed to award 18 him credits on the basis of which he is entitled to release under the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA). 19 Respondent filed an answer, ECF No. 7, and petitioner never filed a response. Petitioner was 20 released January 18, 2022. See BOP Inmate Locator https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/.1 He 21 sought immediate release from custody, ECF No. 1 at 12, and he cannot be awarded what he has 22 already obtained. Furthermore, FSA credits cannot be applied toward a term of supervised 23 release. See Sila v. Warden, No. EDCV 22-1632 RSWL (AS), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43734, *4 24 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2023) (“The First Step Act requires the BOP to transfer inmates to prerelease 25 custody or supervised release when such inmates become eligible based on earned time credits 26 under the Act, but it does not provide for a reduction of supervised release terms, and the BOP is 27 1 I take judicial notice of the locator insofar as it is publicly available. See United States v. 28 Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (taking judicial notice of the locator). 1 | not authorized to reduce such term.”) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, this case must be 2 | dismissed as moot. See Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (habeas 3 | petition mooted where it “seeks relief [that] cannot be redressed by a favorable decision of the 4 | court issuing a writ of habeas corpus”). If petitioner has arguments as to why this action is not 5 | moot, he may address them in any objections he chooses to file. 6 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED as 7 | MOOT. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 10 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 13 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 14 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 15 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 16 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ May 9, 2023 a——— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28