Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01351/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01351-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ARELLANO-CIGFUEGO,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01351-SAB-HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

AS MOOT AND FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

In the petition, Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of Prisons’ policy (Program 

Statement 5410.01) that excludes inmates with immigration detainers, such as Petitioner, from 

applying their First Step Act (“FSA”) Earned Time Credits (“FTCs”). (ECF No. 1 at 6.)2 The 

1 The Court may apply any or all of these rules to habeas corpus petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

2 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:23-cv-01351-WBS-SAB Document 6 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

petition also states that this claim was not presented in all appeals available to Petitioner because 

“[a]ny appeal to BOP policy would be futile.” (ECF No. 1 at 7.)

On November 18, 2022, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) issued Program 

Statement 5410.01, First Step Act of 2018 - Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 

U.S.C. 3632(d)(4), which precluded prisoners with immigration detainers from applying earned 

time credits. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement No. 5410.01, First Step Act of 2018 -

Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. 3632(d)(4) (Nov. 18, 2022), 

https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5410.01_cn2.pdf (last visited Oct. 17, 2023). On February 

6, 2023, the BOP issued Change Notice 5410.01 CN-1. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Change Notice 

No. 541001 CN-1 (Feb. 6, 2023), https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5410.01_cn2.pdf (last 

visited Oct. 17, 2023).3“As a result of Change Notice 5410.01, federal prisoners subject to 

immigration detainers are no longer automatically prohibited from applying their earned time 

credits.” Alatorre v. Derr, No. CV 22-00516 JMS-WRP, 2023 WL 2599546, at *5 (D. Haw. Mar. 

22, 2023).

The Court has “an independent duty to consider sua sponte whether a case is moot.” 

Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 

1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999)). Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of 

federal courts to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 

U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of 

federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must 

have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be 

redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting 

Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). Additionally, “[a]s a prudential matter, courts require that habeas 

petitioners exhaust all available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under 

§ 2241.” Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). 

3 The Court takes judicial notice of the BOP program statement and change notice. Fed. R. Evid. 201. See United 

States v. Thornton, 511 F.3d 1221, 1229 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008) (taking judicial notice of BOP program statement); 

United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2018) (“A court may take judicial notice of 

undisputed matters of public record[.]”).

Case 1:23-cv-01351-WBS-SAB Document 6 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Given that the policy challenged by Petitioner in the petition has been changed such that 

“prisoners subject to immigration detainers are no longer automatically prohibited from applying 

their earned time credits,” Alatorre, 2023 WL 2599546, at *5, Petitioner is HEREBY 

ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order 

why the petition should not be dismissed as moot and for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in a recommendation 

for dismissal of the petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s 

failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01351-WBS-SAB Document 6 Filed 10/17/23 Page 3 of 3