Plaza-Uzeta v. Taylor

── Plaza-Uzeta v. Taylor ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 6 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN PLAZA-UZETA, AKA Ruben No. 24-6902 Franco-Plaza, D.C. No. 1:23-cv-01773-HBK Petitioner - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* TAYLOR, FCI Mendota Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Helena M. Barch-Kuchta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted April 30, 2026** Before: N.R. SMITH, BUMATAY, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Ruben Plaza-Uzeta appeals pro se from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review the denial of the habeas petition de novo. Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. In 2007, Plaza-Uzeta was sentenced to a life sentence, commencing on March 6, 2007. We affirmed the sentence. During his time in prison, in 2010, 2015, and 2021, Plaza-Uzeta was found guilty of possession of a dangerous weapon.1 A disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) sanctioned Plaza-Uzeta for the 2010 and 2021 violations, which reduced his potential good conduct time credits (“GCT”) by 81 days. In 2022, Plaza-Uzeta was resentenced from life imprisonment to 360 months with credit for time served. Thereafter, the Bureau of Prison (BOP) conducted an audit of Plaza-Uzeta’s sentence. Because the district court amended its original judgment, the BOP commenced Plaza-Uzeta’s amended sentence on March 6, 2007, the commencement date of the original sentencing. That BOP decision is consistent with the BOP’s internal Sentence Computation Manual, Program Statement 5880.28. See Sentence Computation Manual, 48 (July 20, 1999) http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5880_028.pdf (“If an SRA term is vacated solely for the purposes of a resentencing, then the date the sentence begins will be the same as the original computation.”). The BOP also provided Plaza-Uzeta credit for all the time previously spent in custody and GCT for each year he served from 2007 through 2022, minus the 81 days for the 2010 and 2021 sanctions. 1 Plaza-Uzeta does not dispute that he was found guilty of these charges. 2 24-6902  1. To receive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a petitioner in federal custody must show that his sentence is being executed in an illegal, but not necessarily unconstitutional, manner. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaza-Uzeta argues that the BOP improperly calculated his GCT, because the DHO lacked authority to impose a sanction of loss of GCT when he was serving a life sentence. Plaza-Uzeta argues that because prisoners sentenced to life are statutorily ineligible to earn GCT, they cannot be sanctioned with a loss of GCT. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). Plaza-Uzeta’s arguments lack merit. First, Plaza-Uzeta cannot prevail on a habeas claim challenging the DHO’s authority to issue sanctions pursuant to BOP’s program statement.2 A “habeas claim cannot be sustained based solely upon the BOP’s purported violatio