Acuna Carmona v. Warden, FCI Sandstone

Background

Felix Alberto Acuna Carmona filed a petition asking the court for habeas relief. He challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ determination that he was ineligible to apply time credits earned under the First Step Act of 2018 because he was subject to a final order of removal. The relevant statute provides that a prisoner cannot apply those credits if the prisoner is subject to a final order of removal under the immigration laws.

The government had been directed to provide evidence of a final removal order. It submitted what appeared to be a facially valid Notice and Order of Expedited Removal entered against Acuna Carmona on July 19, 2024. Acuna Carmona was given an opportunity to reply but did not do so before the deadline expired. The report also noted that an attachment to his petition appeared to be a memorandum prepared for a different habeas petitioner; the court assumed he intended to assert any arguments in that memorandum that were relevant to his case.

Analysis

The report considered three possible claims.

First, Acuna Carmona could be understood to argue that he was not subject to a final removal order. The report concluded that the government’s evidence established that he was subject to one and that he had supplied no contrary evidence or reason to doubt that the order applied to him.

Second, he could be understood to argue that defects in the removal proceedings, such as a possible due-process violation, made the removal order invalid. The report concluded that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review the legality of a final removal order. It therefore stated that this habeas proceeding was not the proper place to challenge the validity of the underlying removal proceedings.

Third, he could be understood to argue that the Bureau of Prisons could not take away First Step Act credits earned before the removal order was entered. The report rejected that argument based on the statute’s text, concluding that, regardless of when the credits were earned, a prisoner subject to a final removal order cannot apply those credits toward the sentence. It concluded that the Bureau of Prisons’ action was consistent with the statute.

Recommendation and procedural status

Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended that the habeas petition be denied and that the matter be dismissed. The document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and the notice states that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Under the notice, a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation, and a response to objections may be filed within 14 days after service of the objections.