Shah v. Peters et al

1
3:23-cv-00801-RBM-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NIMESH SHAH,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLLETTE S. PETERS, BOP Director,
et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:23-cv-00801-RBM-JLB
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING FOLLOWING REMAND
[Docs. 21–22]
On December 1, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued a Dispositive Order and Mandate granting Respondents’ Motion to Vacate and
Remand. (Docs. 21–22.) The Dispositive Order vacated this Court’s “order and Judgment
denying [Petitioner Nimesh Shah’s] 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, and remand[ed] for
further proceedings.” 	(Doc. 21.) 	The court “express[ed] no opinion as to the parties’
dispute regarding the effect, if any, of [Petitioner’s] plea agreement on his requested relief,
or as to the amount, if any, of unused time credits [he] may have remaining.” (Id.1)
1 In moving to remand, Respondents argued that these two issues could be determined by
the district court on remand.
Case 3:23-cv-00801-RBM-JLB Document 23 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:23-cv-00801-RBM-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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:
• 	Petitioner’s current status and the impact of any change in his status2 on whether
there is an ongoing case or controversy that may be “redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).
• 	How Petitioner’s First Step Act (“FSA”) credits were calculated and applied to
reduce his time in custody or on supervised release.3 Respondents’ submission of
a report of Petitioner’s FSA credits (see 	Doc. 6-1 at 31–33) is insufficient.
Respondents must provide a declaration that explains how Petitioner’s FSA credits
were calculated for the entire period from March 25, 2021 when he went into federal
custody to December 6, 2022 when he was put on supervise release. 	This
explanation must include: whether any dates or time periods were excluded and
why; explanation of the time credit factor that applied for each period of time and
why that factor, and not another, applied. Respondents must also explain how the
accumulated FSA credits were applied.
• 	To the extent that Respondents take the position that Petitioner seeking application
of FSA time credits to reduce his term of supervised release following Gonzalez v.
Herrera would violate Petitioner’s plea agreement, Respondents shall address the
issue. 	151 F.4th 1076 (9th Cir. 2025) (interpreting the statutory text to allow the
“FSA’s time credits … be used to reduce the length of time that a prisoner must
2 As the Court noted in its prior Order, under Ninth Circuit precedent, a § 2241 petition is
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).)
However, the record before the Court reflects that Petitioner was released from custody
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.
(See Doc. 7 at 2–3.)
Case 3:23-cv-00801-RBM-JLB Document 23 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:23-cv-00801-RBM-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
spend while on supervised release.”).
Petitioner may file a supplemental brief in response by December 29, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2025
Case 3:23-cv-00801-RBM-JLB Document 23 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3