Essenfeld v. Dulgov

── Essenfeld v. Dulgov ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THEODORE E. ESSENFELD, AKA No. 26-934 Theordore E. Essenfeld, D.C. No. 4:25-cv-00294-JGZ Petitioner - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* DULGOV, Warden; UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as any Interim Warden; and any Acting Warden at the Federal Corrections Institution, Safford, AZ, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Theodore E. Essenfeld appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm. Essenfeld contends that he is entitled to First Step Act (“FSA”) time credits from the date of his sentencing through the date he arrived at his designated facility. We agree with the district court that this claim is unexhausted and that Essenfeld did not show it would have been futile to exhaust administrative remedies. See Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). The district court also correctly determined that Essenfeld had not shown he had completed programming qualifying for FSA time credits during the period in question. We decline to address arguments that Essenfeld did not properly raise before the district court. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 508 (9th Cir. 1994). The motions for judicial notice are denied. The emergency motion to stay disciplinary sanctions and prevent remand to secure custody is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(A)(i); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 425-26 (2009). AFFIRMED. 2 26-934