1 2

3

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 ADRIAN BARAJAS, Case No. 2:21-CV-08458-FLA (KKx) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 MICHAEL CARVAJAL, ET AL., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On October 21, 2021, Petitioner Adrian Barajas (“Petitioner”), a federal inmate 20 currently detained at Federal Correctional Institution-Victorville I, filed a Petition for 21 Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to

(“Section 2241”). 22 ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1, Pet. On November 3, 2021, the Court issued an Order 23 to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed Without Prejudice for 24 Lack of Jurisdiction (“OSC”). Dkt. 3. Petitioner did not file a response to the OSC. 25 For the reasons discussed below, the Court summarily DISMISSES this action 26 without prejudice. 27 /// 1 II. 2 BACKGROUND 3 On January 25, 2018, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of distribution of 4 methamphetamine in violation of

(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) in the 5 United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. United States v. 6 Adrian Barajas, 4:17-CR-00063-CVE-3, dkt. 96, Judgment. Petitioner was sentenced 7 to 120 months in federal custody. Id.; Pet. at 7. 8 On October 21, 2021, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. Pet. While not 9 entirely clear, Petitioner appears to argue he is being deprived of “good time credits” 10 pursuant to the First Step Act.1 Dkt. 1. Specifically, Petitioner argues he should be 11 receiving ten days of credit off his sentence for every thirty days he has participated in 12 eligible programming since December 21, 2018.

13 On November 3, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why This 14 Action Should Not Be Dismissed Without Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction (“OSC”). 15 Dkt. 3. The OSC further warned Petitioner’s “failure to timely file a response . . . 16 will result in the Court’s dismissal of this action without prejudice for lack of 17 jurisdiction and/or for failure to comply with court orders.”

at 2 (citing FED. 18 R. CIV. P. 41(b), emphasis in original). 19 The time for filing a response has passed, and Petitioner has failed to file a 20 response or request an extension of time to do so. 21 /// 22 /// 23 1 The First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115–391,

(2018), was enacted on 24 December 21, 2018. In relevant part, the First Step Act provides: A prisoner, except for an ineligible prisoner under subparagraph (D), 25 who successfully completes evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities, shall earn time credits as follows: 26 (i) A prisoner shall earn 10 days of time credits for every 30 days of 27 successful participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities. 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 While it is not entirely clear whether the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is 4 complying with the First Step Act by failing to promptly recompute inmates’ 5 sentences, it does not appear that there is any violation specifically as to Petitioner. 6 Petitioner argues he is entitled to 340 days, or just over eleven months, of earned time 7 credit under the First Step Act. Pet. at 17. Petitioner admits he is now properly 8 registered with the BOP as “Federal Time Credit Eligible.” See

. Petitioner 9 further acknowledges his security level is Medium, and alleges that as of October 21, 10 2021, when he filed the instant Petition, he has fifty-four months left on his sentence. 11

. Thus, assuming a full award of good time credit based on Petitioner’s 12 calculation, he would still have approximately forty-three months left on his sentence. 13 Hence, provided the BOP updates Petitioner’s sentence computation with sufficient 14 time to ensure he is timely released as required under the First Step Act, habeas relief 15 is not warranted because Petitioner would not be held in violation of the laws of the 16 United States.

(c)(3) (stating a “writ of habeas corpus shall not 17 extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or 18 laws or treaties of the United States”); see also Lewis v. Rios, No. 19-CV-1030 19 (SRN/ECW),

, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2020), report and 20 recommendation adopted,

(D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2020) (dismissing 21 Section 2241 Petition without prejudice because there was still ample time for the 22 BOP to recalculate petitioner’s release date under the First Step Act before his 23 projected release date). 24 Petitioner is, therefore, not currently being held in violation of the law of the 25 United States and the Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice to Petitioner 26 filing a later petition if the BOP fails to properly calculate his sentence. 27 /// 1 IV. 2 ORDER 3 Thus, this Court ORDERS Judgment be entered summarily DISMISSING this 4 | action without prejudice. 5

7 | Dated: December 21, 2021 United States District Judge 9 10 | Presented by: 11 12 Lealyy he 13 14 | United Staves Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28