Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vladimir Vuryevich Kozub filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:25-cv-01602. He challenged Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5410.01, which he said excluded him from applying First Step Act earned time credits. The petition asked the court to direct the BOP to immediately calculate and apply all credits to which he was entitled. Respondent Taylor filed a motion to dismiss on March 3, 2026.
The November 4, 2026 findings and recommendation addressed mootness rather than deciding whether the challenged BOP policy unlawfully excluded Kozub from earned time credits. The court stated that Kozub had been released from BOP custody on March 13, 2026. A footnote identified the BOP Inmate Locator as the source for that information and cited Ninth Circuit authority permitting judicial notice of publicly available information from that locator.
The same filing also addressed the pending defense motion to dismiss. Because the court recommended terminating the underlying habeas case as moot, it further recommended that respondent's motion be terminated as moot. The combined document directed the Clerk of Court to randomly assign the action to a district judge for the next stage of review; that directive is part of the same filing, not a separate merits ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge began with the court's independent duty to consider mootness on its own initiative. Relying on Article III, the opinion explained that federal jurisdiction is limited to actual, ongoing cases or controversies and that this requirement continues throughout federal proceedings. A litigant must have an actual injury, or face a threatened injury, that is traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.
Applying that standard, the court concluded that Kozub's release from BOP custody meant it could no longer provide the relief sought in the petition. It therefore recommended dismissal as moot. The court also cited Sila v. Warden for the proposition that, even when a petitioner is on supervised release and wants First Step Act credits applied to shorten that term, the First Step Act does not provide for a reduction of supervised release and the BOP is not authorized to reduce such terms.
The operative recommendations were that the habeas petition be dismissed as moot and that respondent's motion to dismiss be terminated as moot. Those dispositions were recommendations, not a final district-court judgment. The same filing directed the Clerk of Court to randomly assign the action to a district judge. Kozub was given fourteen days after service to file written objections, limited to fifteen pages including exhibits. The assigned district judge would review the magistrate judge's ruling under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the opinion warned that failure to object on time could waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated mootness as a jurisdictional issue it had an independent duty to examine even without limiting itself to the respondent's arguments.
- Kozub's March 13, 2026 release from BOP custody was the decisive fact supporting the recommendation to dismiss his habeas petition.
- The opinion did not decide the merits of Kozub's challenge to BOP Program Statement 5410.01 or determine how many First Step Act credits he had earned.
- The cited authority distinguished earned time credits from judicial authority to shorten supervised release, stating that neither the First Step Act nor the BOP supplied the requested supervised-release reduction.
- The magistrate judge's dismissal recommendation remained subject to written objections and review by a randomly assigned district judge, and the clerk-assignment directive was included in the same combined filing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how release from custody can defeat a habeas petition seeking calculation and application of First Step Act earned time credits when the requested relief is tied to BOP custody. The court's analysis focused on whether a live, redressable controversy remained, not on the validity of the underlying BOP policy.
The recommendation also cautions petitioners who have moved into supervised release against assuming that the same habeas request can be used to shorten that term. At the same time, the document's practical effect was provisional: it set an objection process and left the recommended dismissal and termination of the defense motion for district-judge review, while including a clerk-assignment directive in the same filing.