Galicia Cuevas v. Warden, FCI Sandstone

Background

Hector Galicia Cuevas filed a petition seeking habeas relief from the Bureau of Prisons’ determination that he was ineligible to apply time credits earned under the First Step Act of 2018. The statute makes a prisoner ineligible to apply those credits if the prisoner is subject to a final order of removal under the immigration laws.

The government submitted a document that appeared to be a facially valid Final Administrative Removal Order concerning Galicia Cuevas. The document was dated typographically as entered on January 3, 2025, but was signed on January 23, 2025. Galicia Cuevas was given an opportunity to respond to the government’s submission but did not do so.

Claims and Analysis

The report understood the petition as potentially raising three claims. First, Galicia Cuevas could have been arguing that he was not subject to a final removal order. The report rejected that argument because the government submitted evidence establishing that he was subject to such an order, and Galicia Cuevas offered no contrary evidence or reason to believe the order did not apply to him.

Second, he could have been challenging defects in the removal proceedings, including possible due-process problems. The report concluded that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review the legality of a final removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). It therefore concluded that Galicia Cuevas could not use this habeas case to argue that the removal order should not have been entered.

Third, he could have argued that the Bureau of Prisons could not take away or prevent the use of First Step Act credits earned before the removal order was entered. The report rejected that argument based on the statute’s plain text. It concluded that applying the credits depends on the prisoner being free from a final order of removal, so a prisoner cannot apply the credits after becoming subject to such an order, regardless of when the credits were earned.

Recommended Disposition

The report concluded that Galicia Cuevas had not established an entitlement to habeas relief. It recommended that his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED and that the matter be DISMISSED.

The document is a Report and Recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. It stated that it was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It also stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation, subject to the applicable local rules. The report was signed by Douglas L. Micko, United States Magistrate Judge.