Cajigas v. Warden

Background

Rafael Cajigas, who was serving a 300-month federal prison sentence at Federal Correctional Institution Otisville, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his First Time Credits and Conditional Transfer to Community Date under the First Step Act and the Second Chance Act. Cajigas alleged that the date had been calculated as July 25, 2026, when it should have been July 15, 2025.

The caption identifies the respondent as FCI Otisville (Warden). The opinion states that Respondent Erik Rickard, Warden of FCI Otisville, argued that the petition should be dismissed for failure to complete administrative remedies, lack of a live controversy, and lack of merit.

Court’s Analysis

The court determined that there was no error remaining to correct. Records from FCI Otisville issued before Cajigas filed the case showed a Conditional Transfer to Community Date of July 15, 2025. The Bureau of Prisons reaffirmed that date in an April 2, 2025 assessment, and the respondent confirmed it in the case. The respondent represented that Cajigas remained conditionally approved for transfer on July 15, 2025, and Cajigas conceded in his reply that the Bureau of Prisons had corrected the error.

The court explained that this problem was more accurately described as a lack of standing, rather than mootness, because the relevant correction occurred before the lawsuit was filed. The court stated that either characterization was fatal to the petition.

The court also held that the petition would fail for lack of exhaustion even if an error remained. Cajigas asked the FCI Otisville Warden for relief but did not continue to the next required step after receiving no response. The court rejected his general assertions that completing the process would waste time, harm his liberty interest, or be futile. The court further noted that Cajigas could not use his reply to add a claim that his transfer date should be even earlier than July 15, 2025; in any event, such a claim would also require exhaustion.

Ruling and Case Status

The court stated that the petition “must be and is DENIED and DISMISSED.” It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Cajigas a copy of the opinion and order and to close the case. The court said it was unclear whether a certificate of appealability was required for an appeal from this type of petition, but ruled that, to the extent one was required, it would not issue because Cajigas had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.