(HC) Morales v. Arviza ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRISTIAN STEVE HERAS MORALES, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1283 JLT EPG ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, DENYING 13 v. ) THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS ) CORPUS, TERMINATING THE MOTION TO 14 M. ARVIZA, ) DISMISS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING THE ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 1, 15, and 25) 16 ) 17 Cristian Steve Heras Morales is a federal prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that the Federal Bureau of Prisons is withholding proper 19 application of jail credit. (Doc. 1.) Respondent moved to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust, 20 while also arguing the petition should be denied on the merits. (Doc. 15.) The magistrate judge 21 “assum[ed], without deciding, that Petitioner’s failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies can 22 be excused” and turned to the merits of Petitioner’s claim. (Doc. 25 at 4.) The magistrate judge found 23 the BOP was “not withholding proper application of jail credit.” (Id. at 8; see also id. at 4-8.) 24 Therefore, the magistrate judge determined that “Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief under 28 25 U.S.C. § 2241, and recommended the petition be denied. (Id.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any 27 objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 25 at 8.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 28 objections within the specified time waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id., citing 1 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filec 2 || objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 4 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the finding that Petitioner is not entitled tc 5 || habeas relief is supported by the record and proper analysis. Because the magistrate judge expressly 6 || declined to decide whether Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies and turned to the merits 7 || the petition, the Court declines to deny the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Rather, the Court 8 || finds the motion shall be terminated as moot, because the petition is dismissed on the merits without 9 || resolution of the exhaustion issue. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 25, 2024 (Doc. 25) are ADOPTED in par 11 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 12 3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is terminated as MOOT. 13 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 14 15 IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: _ September 10, 2024 ( LAW pA LU. wan 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28