Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00925/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00925-1/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

ANDREW JOSEPH MADI,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, USP-ATWATER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00925 JLT SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, 

DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING THE 

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 

AND CLOSE CASE

(Docs. 10, 12)

Andrew Joseph Madi is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting the Bureau of Prisons 

wrongfully denied Petitioner’s eligibility for First Step Earned Time Credits. (Doc. 1.) 

Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that “BOP records indicate Petitioner —

contrary to his claim that he is barred FSA ETC earning and award due to his offense of 

conviction — is eligible to earn and to apply ETCs.” (Doc. 10 at 2.) 

The magistrate judge found the exhibits submitted by Respondent show that “upon receipt 

of the petition, BOP Agency Counsel reviewed Petitioner’s records and determined that Petitioner

should in fact be deemed eligible to earn FSA credits.” (Doc. 12 at 10-1 at 3.) The exhibits also 

establish “the records were corrected as of October 10, 2024, to reflect Petitioner is FSA eligible 

and has earned 365 days of FSA credits with a new projected release date of April 5, 2031.” (Id.

at 2.) The magistrate judge found that because Petitioner was granted the relief requested, “the 

Case 1:24-cv-00925-JLT-SKO Document 15 Filed 01/17/25 Page 1 of 2
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

underlying matter is moot.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Id. at 3.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 

any objections were due within 21 days. (Doc. 12 at 3.) The Court advised the parties that the 

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 

(Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Petitioner nor 

Respondent filed objections, and the time to do so has passed.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 13, 2024, (Doc. 12), are

ADOPTED in full.

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10), is GRANTED.

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

5. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is required.1

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2025 

1 A certificate of appealability will not be required because this is an order addressing a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of 

arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo 

v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Case 1:24-cv-00925-JLT-SKO Document 15 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 2