1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER CAHILL, No. 1:25-cv-00538-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 v. COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 15

16 Doc. 8 WARDEN DOERER, 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner Christopher Cahill is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was referred 22 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On May 8, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 24 dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. 8. Those findings and recommendations were 25 served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 26 twenty-one (21) days after service. On July 7, 2025, petitioner filed objections to the findings and 27 recommendations. Doc. 12. 28 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 1 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including petitioner’s objections, the 2 Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 3 analysis. 4 “[F]ederal courts lack jurisdiction to review the BOP’s individualized [] determinations 5 made pursuant to

.” Close v. Thomas,

(9th Cir. 2011) 6 (quoting Reeb v. Thomas,

(9th Cir. 2011)). “[H]owever, . . . judicial review 7 remains available for allegations that BOP action is contrary to established federal law, violates 8 the United States Constitution, or exceeds its statutory authority . . . .”

at 973–74 (quoting 9 Reeb,

). If a “habeas petition alleges only that the BOP erred in [rendering an 10 individualized determination in the petitioner’s] particular case[,]” not that the individualized 11 determination exceeded the bounds of federal law, then judicial review is foreclosed.

12 Here, petitioner challenges the warden’s review of a letter he submitted requesting 13 restoration of time credits. Doc. 1 at 6. He argues that the warden should have granted his 14 request to restore good time credits because he has remained disciplinary-free for over a year, 15 sought treatment for his drug problems, and renounced his gang membership.

Petitioner does 16 not argue that the warden’s discretionary denial of petitioner’s request exceeded the warden’s 17 statutory authority or was contrary to federal law.

Accordingly, the magistrate judge 18 correctly determined the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claims. 19 In his objections, petitioner cites to Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973), as the 20 basis for his argument that the Court has jurisdiction to review his claims. Preiser does not aid 21 petitioner. In Preiser, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner’s sole remedy when he is 22 challenging the fact or duration of his confinement on the grounds that his confinement is in 23 violation of federal law is a writ of habeas corpus.

. The prisoners in Preiser were 24 challenging disciplinary proceedings where they were sanctioned with a loss of good time credits, 25 and they alleged that the disciplinary proceedings denied them due process.

at 476–77. 26 Petitioner does not argue that he was denied due process or that the warden’s 27 determination was contrary to federal law. Rather, he simply asserts that, based on certain 28 considerations, the warden’s decision should have been different. The Court does not have 1 | jurisdiction to review such a claim. 2 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 3 | because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of 4 | arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission,

(9th 5 | Cir. 1997). 6 Accordingly, 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 8, 2025, Doc. 8, are adopted in 8 full; 9 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; and 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 11 12 13 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 14 Dated: _ July 21, 2025 4h | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28