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

Parties Involved:
Jose Arellano-Cigfuego
Petitioner
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

JOSE ARELLANO-CIGFUEGO,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN,

Respondent.

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 

JUDGE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

I.

BACKGROUND

In the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of 

Prisons’ policy (Program Statement 5410.01), alleging that the policy excludes inmates with 

immigration detainers, such as Petitioner, from applying their First Step Act (“FSA”) Earned 

Time Credits (“FTCs”). (ECF No. 1 at 6.)1 On October 17, 2023, the Court ordered Petitioner to 

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

administrative remedies. (ECF No. 6.) To date, no response has been filed, and the time for 

doing so has passed.

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

Case 1:23-cv-01351-WBS-SAB Document 8 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 4
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

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases2requires 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.

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).

“As 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). However, because it is not a jurisdictional 

prerequisite, exhaustion can be waived if pursuing administrative remedies would be futile. Id.

///

2 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.

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 8 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 4
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

In the petition, Petitioner alleges:

Petitioner has a [sic] Immigration Detainer DHS Form I-247D lodged on him, 

F.C.I. Mendota is calling this a ‘Final Order of Removal.’ The Form on it’s [sic]

face says DETAINER, also this form is regulated by 8 C.F.R. 287.7, 8C.F.R. 

287.7 calls it a detainer and states “any authorized immigration officer may at any 

time issue a Form. I-247.” Petitioner does not believe that this is a “Final Order 

of Removal,” only a [sic] Immigration Judge can issue a Final Order of Removal. 

(ECF No. 1 at 18.) Petitioner attaches the immigration detainer form, which reflects that 

“probable cause exists that the subject is a removable alien” based on “a final order of removal 

against the subject.” (Id. at 20 (capitalization omitted).) Petitioner contends that “[a]ny appeal to 

the BOP would be futile, the BOP has made there [sic] position on this issue clear.” (Id. at 19.) 

In rejecting a similar argument and finding that pursuing administrative remedies would not be 

futile, a district judge in this Court found that such a “dispute does not concern the BOP’s 

interpretation of a statute. Rather, it is a factual dispute. If in fact the BOP has erroneously 

determined that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal rather than an immigration 

detainer, an administrative appeal to correct the factual dispute should prove fruitful.” OrozcoOrozco v. Warden, FCI Mendota, No. 1:23-cv-0908-JLT-SKO, 2023 WL 4493730, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. July 12, 2023). See Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that 

requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing for habeas corpus relief in a parole 

matter “will aid judicial review by allowing the appropriate development of a factual record in an 

expert forum; conserve the court’s time because of the possibility that the relief applied for may 

be granted at the administrative level; and allow the administrative agency an opportunity to 

correct errors occurring in the course of administrative proceedings”). Moreover, the Court notes 

that in the “context of the prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies, the issue of whether 

‘relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative 

scheme’ is a key consideration.” Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting

Montes v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 531, 537 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Petitioner has failed to respond to the order to show cause. As “prisoners subject to 

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

credits,” Alatorre, 2023 WL 2599546, at *5, it is not apparent that exhaustion of administrative

Case 1:23-cv-01351-WBS-SAB Document 8 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 4
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

remedies would be futile given that the dispute at issue here appears to be factual in nature and 

pursuance of administrative remedies may result in further development of the record.

III.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies.

Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 

Judge.

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

Judge assigned to the case, 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, Petitioner may 

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 

District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 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 21, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01351-WBS-SAB Document 8 Filed 12/21/23 Page 4 of 4