Campos-Quintana v. United States of America et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Antonio Campos-Quintana,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden Safford F.C.C.
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-25-00268-TUC-AMM (MAA)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
On September 2, 2025, Antonio Campos-Quintana, an inmate confined in the Federal
Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Safford, AZ, filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2241. Doc. 6. The petitioner claims
that the respondent is wrongfully denying him Earned Time Credits (“ETCs”) pursuant to the
First Step Act (“FSA”). He argues that he is not subject to a final order of removal and the
immigration detainer lodged against him is erroneous. Id.
The respondent filed an answer on February 12, 2026. Doc. 15. The petitioner did not
file a reply.
Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice, this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge
for a report and recommendation. Doc. 7. The petition should be denied because Campos-
Quintana is the subject of a final order of removal and is ineligible for FSA time credits. The
court does not reach the respondent’s remaining objections. Doc. 15.
Case 4:25-cv-00268-AMM Document 16 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 3

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
The order was imposed against a Lalo Ronquillo-Ronquillo, but the respondent asserts that1
this is one of the petitioner’s aliases. Doc. 15-1, ¶ 20. The petitioner did not file a reply disputing the
respondent’s assertion.
- 2 -
Discussion
The First Step Act (“FSA”) allows eligible prisoners to earn time credits toward
prerelease custody or supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C).
A prisoner is ineligible for FSA time credits, however, “if the prisoner is the subject of
a final order of removal under any provision of the immigration laws . . . .” 18 U.S.C. §
3632(d)(4)(E)(i).
Here, the petitioner is the subject of a final order of removal, which was issued on1
December 14, 2022 by Judge Carbone in the Immigration Court in Aurora, Colorado. Doc. 15-
1, ¶ 20; Doc. 15-1, pp. 26-28. Accordingly, he is not eligible to earn time credits under the
FSA.
The petitioner argues that Form I-851A was never issued and therefore he cannot have
a “final order of deportation.” Doc. 6, p. 5. He is mistaken. Form I-851A is used when an
officer from the Department of Homeland Security issues an expedited removal order under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 238(b). Doc. 15, p. 2, n. 3; United States v.
Cazares-Rodriguez, 2017 WL 2212031, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 19, 2017). It is not used when an
Immigration Judge proceeds under the INA § 240. Id. And here, an Immigration Judge issued
the removal order. Doc. 15-1, ¶ 20; Doc. 15-1, pp. 26-28.
The petitioner further argues that he eligible for FSA time credits because the detainer
states that “the decisions shall not NOT [sic] impact alien’s bail, rehabilitation, parole, release,
diversion, custody classification, . . . and so on.” Doc. 6, p. 6. The court does not agree.
The immigration detainer issued against him states that “[t]his detainer . . . should not
impact decisions about the alien’s bail, rehabilitation, parole, release, diversion, custody
classification, work, quarter assignment, or other matters.” Doc. 6-1, p. 6. That statement is
simply an acknowledgment that the detainer should not affect the Bureau of Prison’s authority
to administer the prisoner’s sentence in accordance with the law. It does not instruct the Bureau
Case 4:25-cv-00268-AMM Document 16 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 3

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
- 3 -
of Prisons to disregard the terms of the FSA, which makes a prisoner subject to a final order of
removal ineligible to earn time credits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i); see also United States
v. Valdez-Hurtado, 638 F. Supp. 3d 879, 885 (N.D. Ill. 2022) (“The ICE detainer request is no
more than a request,” so it does not affect a court’s order pursuant to the Bail Reform Act.).
RECOMMENDATION
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review
of the record, enter an order Denying the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus . Doc.
6. Campos-Quintana is ineligible for FSA time credits because he is the subject of a final order
of removal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i). The court does not reach the respondent’s
remaining objections.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within
14 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections are not
timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The Local Rules permit a response to an objection.
They do not permit a reply to a response without the permission of the District Court.
Dated this 1 day of May, 2026.st
Case 4:25-cv-00268-AMM Document 16 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 3