(HC) Santos v. Thompson

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HUGO SANTOS, No. 2:21-cv-1768 TLN DB P 11 Petitioner, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAUL THOMPSON, et al., 14 Respondents.

16 Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 17 2241. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner seeks relief under the First Step Act (“FSA”) of 2018.1 For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed.

20 Petitioner commenced this action by filing the petition. (ECF No. 1.) Therein, he argued that the Federal Bureau of Prisons violated his rights by failing to establish a mechanism for awarding credits under the First Step Act. (Id.) By order dated February 17, 2022, the government was directed to file a response to the petition. (ECF No. 6.) The government filed a response and motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner did not file an opposition, statement of //// 1 The First Step Act made changes to the duration of federal prison sentences, such as incentivizing participation in programs and productive activities by awarding time credits against their sentences. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4).

1 | non-opposition, or otherwise respond to the government’s filing. On June 15, 2022, the | undersigned directed petitioner to file an opposition within thirty days. (ECF No. 9.)

3 Those thirty days have passed, and petitioner has not filed an opposition, statement of || non-opposition, or updated his address.” Service on petitioner at his address of record is fully | effective pursuant to Local Rule 182(f). Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that this | action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. See Local | Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

8 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. The government’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) be denied as moot; 10 2. The Petition (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice.

11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District | Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18 | Dated: December 3, 2022 1 BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 DB:12 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Habeas/R/sant1768.100.2241 .fr.nooppo 26 ? Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator website found at: https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ indicates that petitioner was released from custody on September | 14, 2022. This court may take judicial notice of such information. See Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1155 fn.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (court may take | judicial notice of state agency records).