Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00918/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00918-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Alan Brewer
Petitioner
FCI Mendota Warden
Respondent

Document Text:

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

STEPHEN ALAN BREWER,

Petitioner,

v.

FCI MENDOTA WARDEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00918-EPG-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DENY RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

RELATE CASES AS MOOT, DENY 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

AS MOOT, GRANT RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO SET NEW BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE, AND GRANT PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO AMEND

(ECF Nos. 5, 6)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Stephen Alan Brewer is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons stated herein, the 

undersigned recommends denying Respondent’s motion to relate cases and motion to dismiss as 

moot, granting Respondent’s motion to set new briefing schedule, and granting Petitioner’s 

motion to amend.

I.

BACKGROUND

On August 8, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus commencing the 

instant matter. (ECF No. 1.) The petition lists Petitioner’s full name as “Stephen Alan Brewer,” 

Petitioner’s identification number as “19630-045,” and Petitioner’s place of confinement as FCI 

Marion in Illinois. (Id. at 1, 9.1) However, the petition also states that “FCI Mendota . . . is the 

1 Page numbers refer to the pagination stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:24-cv-00918-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 5
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

BOP Facility where Petitioner is presently housed” and in a copy of a staff request attached as an 

exhibit to the petition, Petitioner’s identification number is listed as 78415-097. (ECF No. 1 at 

10, 20.) Petitioner’s sole claim for relief is that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is 

refusing to apply prior jail credit to Petitioner’s imposed custodial sentence as required by 18 

U.S.C. § 3585. (Id. at 6.) On August 12, 2024, the Court ordered Respondent to respond to the 

petition. (ECF No. 4.)

On September 12, 2024, Stephen Alan Brewer filed a § 2241 petition in the Sacramento 

Division. (Petition, Brewer v. Warden, No. 2:24-cv-02485-CKD (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2024), ECF 

No. 1.2) That petition lists the petitioner’s full name as “Stephen Alan Brewer,” Petitioner’s 

identification number as “78415-097,” and Petitioner’s place of confinement as FCI Mendota in 

California. (Id. at 1.)

On October 5, 2024, Respondent filed motions to dismiss in the instant matter and the 

other case in Sacramento. (ECF No. 5; Motion to Dismiss, Brewer, No. 2:24-cv-02485-CKD 

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2024), ECF No. 3.) On October 16, 2024, the motion to dismiss was stricken 

as prematurely filed in the Sacramento case and that petition was transferred to the Fresno 

Division. (Order, Brewer, No. 2:24-cv-02485-CKD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2024), ECF No. 4; Order, 

Brewer v. Warden, No. 1:24-cv-1258-HBK (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2024), ECF No. 4.) On October 

30, 2024, the petition in No. 1:24-cv-1258-HBK was construed as a motion to amend in the 

instant matter before the undersigned and No. 1:24-cv-1258-HBK was administratively closed. 

(Order, Brewer, No. 1:24-cv-1258-HBK (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024), ECF No. 6.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

Respondent moves for “the matters, denoted 1:24-CV-00918-EPG and 2:24-CV-02485-

CKD, be related before the initially assigned jurist in a single denoted matter,” the current 

briefing schedule in each matter to be vacated, and “this Court [to] set a revised briefing 

schedule (to allow Petitioner opportunity to file Amended Petition grounds and to allow 

2 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 

118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 1:24-cv-00918-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 5
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

Respondent time to address the Amended Petition grounds).” (ECF No. 5 at 3.) Respondent also 

moves to dismiss the instant matter because “[b]ased on the plain text of the petition in 1:24-CV00918-EPG, since Petitioner Brewer declared confinement at FCI-Marion, which is in Illinois, as 

a threshold matter of law, venue is barred in the Eastern District of California.” (ECF No. 5 at 2 

n.3.)

Generally, “where a new pro se petition is filed before the adjudication of a prior petition 

is complete, the new petition should be construed as a motion to amend the pending petition 

rather than as a successive application.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888–90 (9th Cir. 2008); 

see also Grullon v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 137, 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (applying this line of 

reasoning to a § 2241 petition). Here, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

commencing the instant matter on August 8, 2024. Thereafter, a new pro se petition was filed on 

September 12, 2024 in the Sacramento Division and then transferred to the Fresno Division. As 

set forth above, the new petition has been construed as a motion to amend in the instant matter 

and the other case has been administratively closed. Given that there are no longer multiple 

cases, the Court finds that Respondent’s motion to relate cases should be denied as moot. 

The Court now turns to whether amendment should be granted. A party may amend its 

pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or “if the pleading is one to 

which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(1). But “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing 

party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). See Mayle v. Felix, 545 

U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (noting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 is applicable to habeas 

proceedings). Leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). However, the Court may decline to grant leave to amend “if there is strong evidence of 

‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue 

of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired 

Employees v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 

U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 

Case 1:24-cv-00918-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 5
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

4

After reviewing both the original petition and the new pro se petition, the only notable 

change in substance between the two that the Court can discern is the correction of Petitioner’s 

identification number and place of confinement to reflect that Petitioner is housed at FCI 

Mendota. It appears that the original petition’s listing of Petitioner’s identification number as 

“19630-045” and Petitioner’s place of confinement as FCI Marion was in error. Register number 

“19630-045” is assigned to a Stephen B. Brewer. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, 

https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (search by “BOP Register Number” for “19630-045”) (last 

visited Dec. 3, 2024).3 The Court has been serving Petitioner by mailing documents to FCI 

Marion. The Court received a voicemail message from a BOP attorney informing the Court that 

an inmate approached him with a mailing intended for Petitioner that was received in error. 

Based on the foregoing, the original petition contained incorrect information regarding 

Petitioner’s identification number and place of confinement, and the new petition correctly states 

that Petitioner is confined at FCI Mendota, which, in turn, means that venue is proper in the 

Eastern District of California. Accordingly, the Court finds that amendment should be granted 

and thus, Respondent’s motion to dismiss the original petition should be denied as moot. 

III.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. Respondent’s motion to relate cases and motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as 

MOOT; 

2. Respondent’s motion to set new briefing schedule (ECF No. 5) be GRANTED; and

3. Petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF No. 6) be GRANTED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 

3 The Court may take judicial notice of publicly available information from the BOP Inmate Locator.

United States v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2011).

Case 1:24-cv-00918-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and 

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed 

within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned United States District 

Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00918-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 5