Nimesh Shah v. Collette S. Peters, BOP Director, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
Following a Ninth Circuit mandate remanding the case to resolve issues regarding the petitioner's current status, First Step Act credit calculations, and plea agreement implications, the District Court ordered supplemental briefing. The Court directed Respondents to file a brief addressing these specific issues by December 22, 2025, with Petitioner permitted to respond by December 29, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order for supplemental briefing“To address these remaining issues on remand, the Court ORDERS supplemental briefing. Respondents shall file a brief by December 22, 2025 that addresses the following issues...” | agree with court The order is a procedural directive to manage the case following a remand. It does not adjudicate the merits of the habeas petition but rather sets the stage for the court to do so by requiring specific factual and legal submissions from the parties. This is a standard exercise of the court's case management authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural scheduling order following a remand. It correctly identifies the open issues left by the Ninth Circuit and sets specific deadlines and requirements for briefing to resolve them. It relies on appropriate precedent for the standing/mootness issue and the substantive FSA issue. There are no gaps in the reasoning because no legal conclusion is being drawn yet; the court is merely organizing the record.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NIMESH SHAH, Case No.: 3:23-cv-00801-RBM-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 13 v. BRIEFING FOLLOWING REMAND 14 COLLETTE S. PETERS, BOP Director, [Docs. 21–22] et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On December 1, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 20 issued a Dispositive Order and Mandate granting Respondents’ Motion to Vacate and 21 Remand. (Docs. 21–22.) The Dispositive Order vacated this Court’s “order and Judgment 22 denying [Petitioner Nimesh Shah’s] 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, and remand[ed] for 23 further proceedings.” (Doc. 21.) The court “express[ed] no opinion as to the parties’ 24 dispute regarding the effect, if any, of [Petitioner’s] plea agreement on his requested relief, 25 or as to the amount, if any, of unused time credits [he] may have remaining.” (Id.1) 26 27 1 In moving to remand, Respondents argued that these two issues could be determined by 28 1 To address these remaining issues on remand, the Court ORDERS supplemental 2 briefing. Respondents shall file a brief by December 22, 2025 that addresses the following 3 issues: 4 • Petitioner’s current status and the impact of any change in his status2 on whether 5 there is an ongoing case or controversy that may be “redressed by a favorable 6 judicial decision.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 7 • How Petitioner’s First Step Act (“FSA”) credits were calculated and applied to 8 reduce his time in custody or on supervised release.3 Respondents’ submission of 9 a report of Petitioner’s FSA credits (see Doc. 6-1 at 31–33) is insufficient. 10 Respondents must provide a declaration that explains how Petitioner’s FSA credits 11 were calculated for the entire period from March 25, 2021 when he went into federal 12 custody to December 6, 2022 when he was put on supervise release. This 13 explanation must include: whether any dates or time periods were excluded and 14 why; explanation of the time credit factor that applied for each period of time and 15 why that factor, and not another, applied. Respondents must also explain how the 16 accumulated FSA credits were applied. 17 • To the extent that Respondents take the position that Petitioner seeking application 18 of FSA time credits to reduce his term of supervised release following Gonzalez v. 19 Herrera would violate Petitioner’s plea agreement, Respondents shall address the 20 issue. 151 F.4th 1076 (9th Cir. 2025) (interpreting the statutory text to allow the 21 “FSA’s time credits … be used to reduce the length of time that a prisoner must 22 23 24 2 As the Court noted in its prior Order, under Ninth Circuit precedent, a § 2241 petition is 25 not mooted by release from custody if a reduction in a term of supervised release is possible. (See Doc. 14 at 3 (citing Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2005).) 26 However, the record before the Court reflects that Petitioner was released from custody 27 and placed on a three-year term of supervised release on December 6, 2022. 3 Petitioner has calculated that he should have received a total of 300 days of FSA credits. 28 l spend while on supervised release.”’). 2 Petitioner may file a supplemental brief in response by December 29, 2025. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: December 16, 2025 Fe Bo Gs ? L > ° HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28