Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00666/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00666-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SLYTHER J. RODRIGUEZRODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, F.C.I. MENDOTA,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00666-KES-SKO (HC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

SUPPLEMENT PETITION

[Doc. 9]

Petitioner 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. 

On June 12, 2024, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the petition

as unexhausted. (Doc. 6.) On July 8, 2024, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and 

Recommendations. (Doc. 7.) The Findings and Recommendations are now pending review by 

the District Judge.

On January 13, 2025, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Supplement to 2241 Motion.”

(Doc. 9.) In this supplement, Petitioner states that his co-defendant received the same sentence he 

did, yet he discovered his co-defendant has already been released. Petitioner claims this violates 

equal protection principles. Rule 15(d) of the Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure allows for 

supplemental pleadings to the extent a party seeks to “set[] out any transaction, occurrence, or 

Case 1:24-cv-00666-KES-SKO Document 10 Filed 01/15/25 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

event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” The event that Petitioner 

seeks to set forth has no bearing on his petition. Petitioner’s co-defendant may have received the 

same sentence, but the manner in which that sentence was served is completely independent of 

Petitioner’s sentence. There are a great many reasons why Petitioner’s co-defendant may have 

been released prior to Petitioner. Foremost, the co-defendant may not have a Final Order of 

Removal charged against him whereas Petitioner does. For this reason, Petitioner’s motion to 

supplement will be denied.

In addition, Petitioner’s argument goes to the merits of his claims, but the Court has issued 

Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the petition as unexhausted. As the Court noted, the 

matter should have been presented first to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Petitioner believes only 

an immigration detainer has been lodged against him. The detainer he attached to the petition 

indicates a Final Order of Removal was charged against him. Whether he has an actual Final 

Order of Removal charged against him is a factual issue that could and should have been raised 

first to the BOP. As noted by the Court in its Findings and Recommendations, prior to February 

6, 2023, the BOP did take the position that inmates with detainers lodged against them were 

ineligible for application of First Step Act credits. However, on February 6, 2023, the BOP issued 

a change notice which deleted the requirement that inmates have no detainers prior to application 

of credits. Thus, Petitioner would be eligible for application of First Step Act time credits if he 

only has a detainer lodged against him. The question should have been directed to the BOP to 

investigate and correct any errors, but Petitioner instead elected to bypass the BOP and proceed 

directly to the Federal Court in violation of the exhaustion requirement. 

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion to supplement his petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00666-KES-SKO Document 10 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 2