Negron-Soto v. Knight et al

Filing 28

ORDER RULING ON 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The relief sought by Petitioner is now moot. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, Petitioner's petition, ECF No. 1 , is now MOOT and this action 1 , is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE without requiring the respondent to file a return. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 01/17/2023. (dsto, )

4:21-cv-00456-TLW

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 28

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Moises A. Negron-Soto, # 51846-069,

Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-00456-TLW

PETITIONER,
v.

Order

Steve Knight, Warden,
RESPONDENT.

This is a pro se action filed by a federal prisoner, Moises A. Negron-Soto
(“Petitioner”). ECF No. 1. This matter now comes before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas E. Rogers, III. ECF No. 22. Petitioner has not filed objections to the Report.
This matter is now ripe for the Court’s review.
On February 12, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Thereafter, the magistrate judge issued
a proper form order and subsequently issued a report and recommendation
recommending that Petitioner’s petition be dismissed without prejudice for failing
to pay the filing fee. ECF Nos. 6 & 11. Petitioner filed objections to this report and
provided evidence that he had attempted to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 13. This
Court sustained Petitioner’s objections and instructed the magistrate judge to
analyze the merits of the petition. ECF No. 17.
As to the merits of the petition: Petitioner asserts that he earned time credits
per the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C § 3632(d)(4)(A). ECF No. 1 at 2. Petitioner asserts he
Page 1 of 4

4:21-cv-00456-TLW

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 28

Page 2 of 4

filed a BP-9 and BP-10 and that further steps of exhaustion are futile. ECF No. 1 at
6) Petitioner argues the Bureau of Prisons has failed to apply his earned time credits
for the “Evidence-Based Recidivism reduction Programming” under the First Step
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A) and that he should be granted 365 days of credit. ECF
No. 1 at 8–9.
The magistrate judge issued the instant Report addressing these arguments.
ECF No. 22. He concluded that Petitioner’s action is subject to dismissal as
premature. Id. at 3. In support of this conclusion, the magistrate judge specifically
noted that Ҥ 3621(h)(4) of the FSA provides a two-year deadline to implement the
program at issue, and that deadline has not yet expired. Hence, the BOP is under no
obligation to act before the deadline has passed[.]” Id. Accordingly, the magistrate
judge recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice because
Petitioner’s “action is not yet ripe as BOP is not statutorily obligated to act yet.” Id.
Petitioner did not file any objections to the Report.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting its review,
the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to
which any party may file written objections.... The Court is not bound
by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains
responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
Page 2 of 4

4:21-cv-00456-TLW

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 28

Page 3 of 4

the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other
standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections
are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review
of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify
any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.

Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed the
Report, the objections, and relevant filings. According to the magistrate judge,
Petitioner’s action would not be ripe until January of 2022. ECF No. 22 at 3. Notably,
according to the Bureau of Prison’s records, Petitioner was released in January of
2022. Accordingly, considering his release, the writ of habeas corpus is no longer
available to Petitioner because he is no longer in custody and this Court no longer
has jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) (“The writ of habeas
corpus shall not extent to a prisoner unless . . . he is in custody . . . .”) (emphasis
added); Ross v. Reed, 719 F.2d 689, 693–94 (4th Cir. 1983) (“If intervening factual or
legal events effectively dispel the case or controversy during pendency of the suit, the
federal courts are powerless to decide the questions presented. Ross’s release has had
the effect of destroying the case or controversy concerning the facial validity of the
regulations.”). The relief sought by Petitioner is now moot. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated herein, Petitioner’s petition, ECF No. 1, is now MOOT and this action
1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Page 3 of 4

4:21-cv-00456-TLW

Date Filed 01/18/23

Entry Number 28

Page 4 of 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Terry L. Wooten______
Senior United States District Judge
January 17, 2023
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 4 of 4