Morales v. Mosley

Filing 26

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Order to Verify Citizenship; adopting Report and Recommendations re 23 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on October 22, 2014. (AA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
MIGUEL MORALES
VS.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-cv-848-DCB-MTP

WARDEN BONITA MOSLEY

RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael T.
Parker’s Report and Recommendation of September 25, 2014 [docket
entry no. 23] and Petitioner’s, Miguel Morales, Motion for Order to
Verify Citizenship [docket entry no. 18]. Judge Parker recommends
that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without
prejudice. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the
petitioner’s objections thereto, and applicable statutory and case
law, the Court finds as follows:
Petitioner Miguel Morales is currently incarcerated at the
Federal Correction Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi, (“CCYC”). He
is due to be released on November 4, 2014. Report & Recommendation
p. 1. Morales filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus
on October 29, 2013, alleging that he is being denied equal
protection of the law because his request to verify his citizenship
has been denied. Morales requests that this Court order “the staff
of the [CCYC} to take the necessary steps to verify [his] United

1

States Citizenship.” Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus p. 8. In her response,
Respondent Warden Bonita Mosley argues that this Court lacks
subject

matter

alternatively,

jurisdiction
that

to

Morales

has

hear

the

failed

petition
to

exhaust

and,
his

administrative remedies. Warden Mosley specifically argues this
Court lacks jurisdiction because the requested relief would not
affect the duration of Morales’s sentence.
Judge Parker found that this Court does have subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter to the extent that “Morales argues
that he is being deprived of early release via placement in a
halfway house program.” Report & Recommendation p. 3. Morales
argues in his petition that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
has incorrectly categorized him as a resident alien instead of a
citizen of the United States. Morales claims he acquired U.S.
citizenship pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1431 because his father
naturalized before Morales turned eighteen. Notice Traverse p. 2.
Morales’s

categorization

as

a

resident

alien

precludes

his

participation in a halfway house program under BOP policy, and
successful participation in such a program can result in a sentence
reduction of up to twelve (12) months. See Report & Recommendation
p. 3 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(e)(2)(B) & 3624; 28 C.F.R. §
550.55(b)(1)).
Judge Parker also found that Morales did not properly exhaust
his administrative remedies. “Morales admit[ted] in the Petition

2

that he ceased to pursue administrative remedies past the warden
level due to several rejections.” Report & Recommendation p. 4.
Judge Parker further found that Morales’s failure to exhaust did
not meet any of the “extraordinary circumstances” exceptions to
exhaustion. Id. at p. 4-5 (finding that repeated rejection does not
show the inappropriateness or futility of an administrative remedy
and that “the possibility of Morales’s sentence expiring while the
administrative remedy process is pending” is not an extraordinary
circumstance).
Morales

timely

filed

his

Objection

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation. Pursuant to Uniform Local Civil Rule 72(a)(3),
Warden Mosley informed the Court that she would not respond to
Morales’s objections. Resp’t’s Resp. Opp. p. 1. Morales’s filing
can

be

narrowed

to

one

salient

objection:

the

Report

and

Recommendation was filed eleven (11) months after Judge Parker
ordered Morales to explain his admitted failure to exhaust the
administrative remedies. See Objection Report & Recommendation.
“[P]arties

filing

objections

must

specifically

identify

those

findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections
need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S.
Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles
v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410

n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)).

The Court finds that this objection need not be considered. When
there has been no objection to a report and recommendation, review

3

is limited to plain error. Shelby v. City of El Paso, Tex., — F.
App’x —, No. 13-509040, 2014 WL 3888244, at *3 (5th Cir. Aug. 8,
2014) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other
grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation for plain error,
and finding none, the Court is satisfied that Judge Parker has
undertaken an extensive examination of the issues in this case and
has issued a thorough opinion. The Court finds that the reliefs
requested in the petition and in Morales’s motion are identical,
and the Court will therefore dispose of both at once and for the
same reasons. Alternatively, the motion is mooted by the Court’s
order. The motion, therefore, will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED.
FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

Petitioner’s

Objection

to

the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for Order to
Verify Citizenship is DENIED.
A final judgment dismissing the Petition will follow in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

4

SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of October, 2014.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5