(HC) Alvarado-Melendez v. United States, 1:20-cv-01783

Petitioner Jose A. Melendez, a federal prisoner housed at USP Atwater (E.D. Cal.), filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 contesting BOP’s failure to credit 859 days of prior custody.
The petition was filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on December 18, 2020 and transferred to the Eastern District of California because the petitioner is incarcerated within this Court’s jurisdiction.
The magistrate judge conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
The petition was found to be duplicative of a December 16, 2020 petition filed as Melendez v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-01773-SKO.
The magistrate judge concluded a second/further petition raising the same grounds must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).
The Clerk was directed to assign a district judge and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal, with a 21-day objection period and notice that failure to object may waive appeal rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 2241 petition is duplicative / second or successive	Melendez: BOP denied 859 days’ credit; seeks relief via § 2241	Respondent: Petition repeats grounds already raised in earlier December 16 petition	Petition is duplicative and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard for preliminary review under Rule 4)
Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13 (9th Cir. 1971) (leave to amend is required unless no tenable claim can be pleaded)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to timely object to magistrate findings may waive appellate rights)