Dominguez v. United States of America
- Michael Davis
- 0:25-cv-03854
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Dominguez v. United States of America, Judge Michael J. Davis denied Carlos Alberto Dominguez's petition asking the court to order the government to apply earned time credits to reduce his sentence, ruling that a final order of removal makes him ineligible for those credits under federal law.
Federal prisoners who are subject to a final order of removal from the United States and seek to apply First Step Act earned time credits — including those who completed drug treatment programs like RDAP — to reduce their sentences. Also relevant to Cuban nationals in U.S. immigration detention who may argue their removal is legally unenforceable.
What happened
In Dominguez v. United States of America (Civil File No. 25-03854), Carlos Alberto Dominguez, a federal prisoner representing himself, asked the court to order the government to apply time credits he earned by completing a drug treatment program (called RDAP, the Residential Drug Abuse Program) to shorten his prison sentence. The government opposed this, arguing that a federal law known as the First Step Act of 2018 bars the application of such earned time credits to any prisoner who is subject to a final order of removal from the United States. A magistrate judge reviewed the case first and recommended denying the petition, and Dominguez then filed objections.
Dominguez raised two main objections. First, he argued that his 2014 removal order was never actually carried out and therefore became invalid, so a new order would have been required after he illegally reentered the country. Second, he argued he cannot be removed to Cuba because there is no extradition agreement between the United States and Cuba. The court rejected both arguments: federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5)) provides that when someone reenters the United States illegally after a removal order, that original order is automatically reinstated and cannot be reopened or challenged; and extradition law is simply not relevant to a deportation removal order.
Judge Michael J. Davis overruled Dominguez's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice — meaning Dominguez is not necessarily barred from raising different or new claims in a future filing, though the court made no ruling on what those might be.
The detailed version
Case
Carlos Alberto Dominguez v. United States of America, Civil File No. 25-03854 (MJD/DTS), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Judge
United States District Judge Michael J. Davis, adopting the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Shultz.
Background
Carlos Alberto Dominguez, proceeding pro se (representing himself without a lawyer), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking the court to order his release or other relief from custody. Specifically, Dominguez sought to have earned time credits (ETCs) applied to reduce his sentence. These credits are available under the First Step Act of 2018 to prisoners who complete certain rehabilitative programs, including the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). Dominguez had completed RDAP.
Key Legal Issue
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i), a prisoner who is subject to a final order of removal under immigration law is ineligible to have earned time credits applied toward early release. The government argued, and Magistrate Judge Shultz agreed in the R&R, that Dominguez's existing removal order made him ineligible for this benefit.
Petitioner's Objections
Dominguez filed objections to the R&R (construed liberally, as required for pro se filings per Eighth Circuit precedent). The court noted that at least one objection raised a new issue not previously presented, which is generally impermissible under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1) and the court's own pro se habeas guidebook. However, the court exercised its discretion to address the objections because it could resolve them quickly.
1. Reinstatement of Prior Removal Order: Dominguez argued his 2014 removal order was never enforced, making it 'null and void,' and that a new order was required after his illegal reentry. The court rejected this, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), which provides that when an alien illegally reenters the United States after removal or voluntary departure under a removal order, the prior removal order is automatically reinstated from its original date, is not subject to reopening or review, and the alien shall be removed under that prior order. The regulation Dominguez cited (8 C.F.R. § 1003.25) was found irrelevant.
2. Removal to Cuba: Dominguez argued he could not be removed to Cuba because there is no extradition agreement between the United States and Cuba. The court rejected this because extradition (a process for transferring criminal suspects between countries for prosecution) is legally distinct from immigration removal (deportation). The court also noted that removals to Cuba are ongoing, referencing the Obama administration's 2017 announcement ending the 'wet-foot/dry-foot' policy for Cuban nationals and news reports of recent deportation flights to Cuba.
Ruling
Judge Davis overruled Dominguez's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's R&R, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. Dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but does not formally bar Dominguez from bringing different or new legal claims in a future filing; however, the court made no representation about what claims, if any, might be available to him.
Note on Court's Scope
The court expressly stated it took no stance on possible immigration issues related to Dominguez's removal and limited its finding to the conclusion that the age of the removal order and its prior non-execution are not legal barriers to Dominguez's removal.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.