Sarabia v. Warden FCI Sandstone
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-00706
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Sarabia v. Warden FCI Sandstone, Magistrate Judge Foster recommended denying the petition because the First Step Act did not disadvantage Sarabia.
Felipe Cabrera Sarabia, whose request for First Step Act time credits was recommended for denial; the recommendation also explains the statutory exclusion affecting prisoners in the specified heroin-offense category who were found to be leaders or organizers.
What happened
Felipe Cabrera Sarabia challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ decision that he could not earn time credits under the First Step Act. The statute excludes certain prisoners convicted of heroin offenses when the sentencing court found they were leaders or organizers, and Sarabia acknowledged that he met those conditions.
Sarabia argued that applying this exclusion to him violated the Constitution’s ban on retroactive criminal laws because the First Step Act was enacted after the conduct leading to his conviction. He also briefly mentioned due process, but he did not develop a separate due process claim.
In Sarabia v. Warden FCI Sandstone, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster concluded that the First Step Act did not increase Sarabia’s punishment because he would have served the same sentence and earned no First Step Act credits even without the law. Judge Foster recommended that the petition be denied and the matter dismissed.
The detailed version
- Sarabia v. Warden FCI Sandstone · No. 0:25-cv-00706
- Dulce J. Foster
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
This Report and Recommendation addressed preliminary review of Felipe Cabrera Sarabia’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 3632. Sarabia challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ determination that he was ineligible for time credits under the First Step Act of 2018.
The First Step Act allows many federal prisoners to earn credits through evidence-based programs that can reduce their sentences by up to one year. The statute excludes prisoners convicted of certain heroin offenses when the sentencing court found that the prisoner was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense. Sarabia pleaded guilty to distributing at least one kilogram of a substance containing heroin, and the sentencing judge found that he was a leader in the offense. Sarabia conceded that the statute’s text excluded him from receiving the credits.
Claims and analysis
Sarabia argued that applying the First Step Act’s exclusion to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. That constitutional provision prohibits retroactive criminal or penal laws that disadvantage the affected person. The court explained that Sarabia could not satisfy the disadvantage requirement. Without the First Step Act, he would have served the same amount of time in prison and earned the same number of First Step Act credits—none. The court therefore concluded that the statute did not increase his punishment or otherwise disadvantage him.
Sarabia also briefly suggested that the Bureau of Prisons’ decision violated his due process rights. The court stated that he did not explain or develop a separate due process claim, and the ex post facto claim was the central claim in the petition.
Recommendation and effect
Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended that Sarabia’s petition be DENIED and that the matter be DISMISSED. The document states that it is a Report and Recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and therefore is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It also states that objections could be filed within 14 days after service of the Report and Recommendation.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.