Enriquez v. Rarden

Background

Rosendo Enriquez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a statute that allows a person in federal custody to challenge certain aspects of detention. The matter came before District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.

The Report and Recommendation initially recommended dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Enriquez had not paid the filing fee. It alternatively recommended dismissal without prejudice because the relief Enriquez sought was not available through habeas review. The docket showed that Enriquez paid the filing fee five days after the recommendation was filed. The district court therefore considered the alternative basis for dismissal rather than treating the recommendation as moot.

Enriquez’s Request and the Court’s Analysis

Enriquez was self-represented and submitted a letter responding to the recommendation. The court found no objection to the recommendation in the letter. Instead, Enriquez asked the court to order the Bureau of Prisons to issue a new calculation sheet showing the correct number of earned-time credits and to direct the Bureau of Prisons to follow its policy.

The court stated that Enriquez’s challenge did not concern the fact or duration of his confinement. The recommendation and Enriquez’s letter indicated that he had already been awarded 365 days of credit toward release, which the court identified as the maximum permitted under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(3). Relying on the reasoning in the recommendation and applicable precedent, the court concluded that habeas relief was not the proper remedy for the relief Enriquez currently sought.

Ruling

The court reviewed the recommendation, found no error, and adopted it. The court ordered that Enriquez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was DENIED. It further ordered that the action was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.