The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BREYON WILBERT BROWN,
4:24-CV-04123-CBK
Petitioner,
VS.
ORDER
WARDEN O’DONNELL
Respondent.
Petitioner, a prisoner at the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton, South Dakota, filed
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges
the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) calculation, under the First Step Act, of his earned credits
and thus the date he is eligible for release.
Petitioner is attacking the length of his sentence as calculated by the BOP. “After
a district court sentences a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the BOP, has
the responsibility for administering the sentence.” United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329,
335, 112 S. Ct. 1351, 1355, 117 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1992). The BOP has developed detailed
procedures and guidelines for calculating sentences, including awarding credit for, inter
alia, credit under the First Step Act. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. at 336, 112 S.Ct.
at 1355. “Federal regulations have afforded prisoners administrative review of the
computation of their credits and prisoners have been able to seek judicial review of these
computations after exhausting their administrative remedies.” Jd. (internal citations
omitted). After exhausting administrative remedies, a prisoner seeks judicial review
through the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
United States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir. 2006). :
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, when a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed,
the “judge entertaining an application . . . shall forthwith award the writ, or issue an order
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it
appears from the application that the application or person detained is not entitled
thereto.” (Emphasis supplied.) Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
the United States District Courts allows this Court to apply Rule 4 of those rules to a
section 2241 action. Pursuant to Rule 4, and consistent with § 2243, the Judge assigned
to a petition must examine the petition and any attachments to determine whether it
plainly appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief. If the petition is not dismissed on
that basis, the Court must order the respondent to file an answer.
I have conducted an initial consideration of the petition, pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and money
laundering. He was sentenced on November 27, 2018, in the Eastern District of
Missouri, 1:16-cr-00082-SNLJ-3, to 144 months imprisonment on each count to be
served concurrently. The BOP has calculated petitioner’s scheduled release date as May
18, 2026. https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc, visited July 5, 2024. Petitioner contends that
he is entitled to immediate transfer to prerelease custody.
DECISION
On December 21, 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act of 2018, which, inter
alia, added subchapter D to Chapter 29 of title 18, United States Code. Pub. L. 115-391,
Sec. 101, 132 Stat. 5194. The Attorney General, together with the BOP, the Director of
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Director of the Office of
Probation and Pretrial Services, the Director of the National Institute of Justice, the
Director of the National Institute of Corrections, and the Independent Review Committee
authorized by the First Step Act of 2018, shall develop an evidence-based recidivism
reduction program. Congress directed that the “System shall provide incentives and
rewards for prisoners to participate in and complete evidence-based recidivism reduction
programs,” including earning time credits for participating in such programs.
PL 115-391, Sec. 3632, 132 Stat. December 21, 2018, 132 Stat 5198 codified at 18
U.S.C. § 3632. Such time credits earned “shall be applied toward time in prelease
ie
custody or supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C). The BOP administers such
credits, which the BOP now refers to as “FSA Time Credits” or “FTC,” pursuant to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5410.01.
“A prisoner may bring a habeas action challenging the BOP’s execution of his
sentence only if he first presents his claim to the BOP.” Mathena v. United States, 577
F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2009). The Bureau of Prisons administrative remedy provisions
are set forth at 28 C.F.R. Part 542. Pursuant to § 542.13, “an inmate shall first present an
issue of concern informally to staff.” An inmate who is not satisfied with the Warden’s
response may submit an appeal to the appropriate Regional Director and thereafter may
appeal to the General Counsel. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. However, “formal administrative
remedy requests regarding initial decisions that did not originate with the Warden, or
his/her staff, may be initially filed with the Bureau office which made the original
decision.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d)(5). The BOP has developed policies consistent with
these provisions pursuant to Program Statement 1330.18 Administrative Remedy
Program (last updated January 6, 2014). □
Petitioner states in the petition that he presented a request for home confinement to
the warden. He states that, on June 25, 2024, the warden responded that his placement at
a residential re-entry center is to commence on October 16, 2024. Petitioner provided no
information showing that he had appealed that determination any further. He contends in
the petition that he is entitled to immediate transfer to prerelease custody because he has
930 earned time credits under the First Step Act. He specifically indicated in the petition
that he did not present the claim that he has credits entitling him to immediate placement
in any appeals that were available to him.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies promotes “(1) the development of the
necessary factual background upon which the claim is based; (2) the exercise of
administrative expertise and discretionary authority often necessary for the resolution of
the dispute; (3) the autonomy of the prison administration, and (4) judicial efficiency
from the settlement of disputes at the prison level.” Mason v. Ciccone, 531 F.2d 867,
870 (8th Cir. 1976). In this case, the benefits from exhaustion are substantial. There is
no reference in the petition as to why the BOP’s calculation of petitioner’s release date
differs from petitioner’s claim that he has earned enough credits for release.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to ae the Bureau of Prison’s administrative remedies.
DATED this )~Hay of July, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
OA Me WF ovrucrines
CHARLES B. KORNMANN
United States District Judge