(HC) Valdez Mendez v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LUIS MIGUEL VALDEZ MENDEZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-01416-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 15 Respondents.

17 Petitioner Luis Miguel Valdez Mendez is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of Prisons’ policy of refusing to allow prisoners with immigration detainers to earn time credits under the First Step Act. On January 13, 2023, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that “this Court should dismiss the petition for lack of Article III standing and ripeness, and statutorily for lack of jurisdiction under § 2241.” (ECF No. 8 at 1.)1 23 On February 6, 2023, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) issued Change Notice 5410.01 CN- 1, which, inter alia, struck language from Program Statement 5410.01 relating to inmates with “unresolved immigration status.” Bureau of Prisons, Change Notice No. 541001 CN-1 (Feb. 6, 2023), https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5410.01_cn2.pdf.2 On March 10, 2023, the BOP 1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the BOP program statement and | issued Change Notice 5410.01 CN-2, which made changes to the application of earned time | credits. Bureau of Prisons, Change Notice No. 541001 CN-2 (Mar. 10, 2023), | https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5410.01_cn2.pdf. The Court finds that supplemental | briefing addressing the Change Notices to Program Statement 5410.01 would assist the Court in | this matter.

6 Additionally, Petitioner has filed a motion for temporary restraining order, alleging that | his PATTERN score has been improperly increased to medium, which prevents him from | applying his earned time credits, and that his “case manager refuses to permit [him] to access the | administrative remedy process and . . . ripped up [his] written grievance” and thus he has “no | access to the BOP grievance system due to [his] case manager’s actions.” (ECF No. 12 at 4.) The | Court finds that a response from Respondent to the motion for temporary restraining order would | assist the Court in this matter.

13 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 14 1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file a 15 supplemental brief addressing the Change Notices to Program Statement 5410.01 and any 16 effect they have on the petition and motion to dismiss; 17 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file a 18 response to Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order; 19 3. Within seven (7) days of the date of service of Respondent’s response to the motion for 20 temporary restraining order, Petitioner may file a reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23| Dated: _ May 2, 2023 [see ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27} 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[.]”).