1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 BENJI MACAULAY, ) No. 2:25-cv-10058-AH-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 13 v. ) ) PETITION 14 ) ) 15 B. BIRKHOLZ, Warden, ) ) ) 16 Respondent. ) ) 17 18 On October 20, 2025, Benji Macaulay (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner 19 serving a sentence imposed in United States v. Benji Macaulay, (C.D. Cal.) 20 Case. No. 2:24-cr-00083-JAK, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 21 Person in Federal Custody (Dkt. 1, “Petition” or “Pet.”) under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2241, asserting that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) had refused to 23 apply First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”) earned time credits (“ETCs”) that, he 24 claims, would have made him eligible for placement at a halfway house and 25 eligible for an earlier release date. Petitioner contends “Prison Staff” advised 26 him that his FSA ETCs were denied because of “‘an ICE detainer,’” 27 alternatively described as a “final order of removal,” copies of which were not 28 provided to him. Pet. at 3, 5 (CM/ECF pagination). 1 As the existence of a Final Order of Removal appeared to be a material 2 issue in the action, on October 21, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge directed 3 that if a Final Order of Removal existed as to Petitioner, Respondent was to 4 file it within seven days. Dkt. 6. In response, on October 22, 2025, Respondent 5 filed a copy of the Final Order of Removal as to Petitioner. Dkt. 8-1. That 6 Final Order of Removal reflects that is was issued by an Immigration Judge on 7 December 13, 2004, and ordered Petitioner to be removed from the United 8 States to Nigeria. Id. 9 Under

(d)(4)(E), “[a] prisoner is ineligible to apply time 10 credits under subparagraph (C) [of the FSA] if the prisoner is the subject of a 11 final order of removal under any provision of the immigration laws”; see also 12

(a)(2) (“[f]or any inmate eligible to earn FSA Time Credits” 13 who is “[s]ubject to a final order of removal under immigration laws . . . the 14 [BOP] may not apply FSA Time Credits toward prerelease custody or early 15 transfer to supervised release”); Cabrera-Huato v. USP Lompoc Warden, 2024

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2024), accepted by

17 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2024); Felix-Felix v. Engleman,

, at *3 18 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2023), accepted by

(C.D. Cal. June 7, 19 2023). 20 As it appeared Petitioner was subject to a Final Order of Removal that 21 would bar the relief he seeks by the Petition, on October 28, 2025, the 22 magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to show cause, in writing, within 14 days 23 why the Petition should not be dismissed due Petitioner’s being subject to a 24 Final Order of Removal, rendering him ineligible to apply time credits earned 25 under the FSA. Dkt. 11 (“OSC”). 26 On November 14, 2025, Petitioner filed a request seeking a 60-day 27 extension of time to respond to the OSC, further advising that he was no 28 longer in BOP custody, having been transferred to the custody of Immigration 1 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Dkt. 12 (“Request”). On November 18, 2 2025, the magistrate judge denied the Request, finding it was not supported by 3 good cause and further finding that, as the Request reflects that Petitioner is no 4 longer in BOP custody, the Petition, which sought relief in the form of the 5 application of time credits toward early release from BOP custody, appeared to 6 be moot. Dkt. 14. 7 Petitioner did not further respond or provide any substantive response to 8 the OSC. 9 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 10 States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), a district court “must promptly 11 examine” the petition and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any 12 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the “judge must 13 dismiss the petition.” See also Mayle v. Felix,

(2005). A 14 habeas petition brought under

is subject to the same 15 screening requirements that apply to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2254. See Habeas Rule 1(b) (providing that district courts may apply the 17 Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are not brought under

); 18 Lane v. Feather,

(9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district 19 court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 in dismissing a Section 2241 petition). 20 As noted, under

(d)(4)(E), “[a] prisoner is ineligible to 21 apply time credits under subparagraph (C) [of the FSA] if the prisoner is the 22 subject of a final order of removal under any provision of the immigration 23 laws”; see also

(a)(2) (“[f]or any inmate eligible to earn FSA 24 Time Credits” who is “[s]ubject to a final order of removal under immigration 25 laws . . . the [BOP] may not apply FSA Time Credits toward prerelease 26 custody or early transfer to supervised release”); Cabrera-Huato,

3467801, at *3, accepted by

; Felix-Felix,

3903817, at *3, accepted by

. 1 The record reflects that Petitioner was subject to a Final Order of 2 ||Removal while in BOP custody. As such, he was statutorily ineligible to have 3 || FSA credits applied toward early release or early pre-release custody. 4 || Petitioner was advised of the existence of the Final Order of Removal and 5 || provided an opportunity to show cause why its existence did not preclude the 6 || relief he seeks by the Petition. Petitioner did not provide a substantive response 7 || within the time permitted. 8 As it “plainly appears” that Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he 9 ||seeks, under Habeas Rule 4, the Petition must be dismissed. 10 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is 11 |} DISMISSED with prejudice. Nothing in this Order prevents Petitioner from 12 ||challenging any detention other than that challenged in the Petition. 13 +h 14 || Dated: DECEMBER 8, 2025 Fm WA 15 ANNE HWANG . United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28