Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allen v. Davies

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

April 18, 2019

Charles A. Allen III
v.
Walter Davies, Director, Hampshire House; and J. Ray Ormond, Regional Director, Bureau of Prisons, Northeast Regional Office

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ANDREA K. JOHNSTONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the court is petitioner Charles A. Allen III's filing, entitled “Motion for Good-Time Credits (Pursuant to the First Step Act)” (Doc. No. 1), which this court has construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the calculation of his federal prison sentence by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). The matter is before the undersigned magistrate judge for preliminary review to determine whether the petition is facially valid and may proceed. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“§ 2254 Rules”); § 2254 Rule 1(b) (allowing application of the § 2254 Rules to any habeas petition).

         Background

         Allen asserts that he is presently serving a 132-month sentence imposed by this court in United States v. Allen, No. 09-cr-167-01-PB (D.N.H.). Allen asserts here that the BOP has recently transferred him to the Hampshire House halfway house, and that he is scheduled to be released from incarceration on June 10, 2019.

         In his petition, Allen invokes Section 102(b) of the recently-enacted First Step Act of 2018, which, inter alia, amends 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1), the statute which authorizes and governs the BOP's calculation of federal sentences imposed by the federal courts. Section 102(b)(1) amends § 3624(b)(1) by raising the amount of good-time credit federal prisoners may receive, for each year of their sentence, from forty-seven days to fifty-four days.

         Allen now challenges the BOP's calculation of his sentence and release date, and asks the court to direct the BOP to grant him additional good-time credit. Allen contends that under § 102(b)(1), he is entitled to an additional seven days of good-time credit for each year of his eleven-year sentence, amounting to a total of seventy-seven additional days of good-time credit. Applying that figure to his presently calculated June 10, 2019 release date, Allen claims he should have been released on March 25, 2019.

         Allen states that the BOP has declined to recalculate his sentence based on the First Step Act, and further that the BOP does not intend to make any good-time credit calculation changes until July 2019 which, Allen alleges, will deprive him of good- time credit to which he is entitled under § 102(b). Allen further alleges, without specificity, that some federal prisoners with release dates in June, July, and August 2019, have already had their good-time credit recalculated and adjusted under the First Step Act, while Allen's June 2019 release date has not been so adjusted.

         Discussion

         I. Nature of Action

         It appears Allen intended to file his instant request for a court order, directing the BOP to recalculate his good-time credit, as a motion in his closed criminal case. However, “a post-conviction motion attacking either the execution of a sentence or confinement that is not the result of a trial court's judgment must be brought in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where the defendant is incarcerated or in a regional BOP office.” United States v. Powell, No. 5:11-cr-75-JMH-1, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60012, at *3, 2019 WL 1521972, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 8, 2019); see also Fusco v. Grondolsky, No. 17-cv-10771-DHH, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145891, at *8-*9, 2018 WL 4100039, at *3 (D. Mass. Aug. 27, 2018). As stated above, after a sentence has been imposed by the court, discretion for the calculation of the sentence rests entirely with the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3624(a)-(b).

         Accordingly, Allen's challenge to the BOP's calculation of his good-time credit must be raised in a § 2241 petition, and the court has so construed his motion.[1]

         II. Standard

         In undertaking § 2254 Rule 4 preliminary review, this court decides whether the petition contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and cognizable in a federal habeas action. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.”). When a habeas petitioner is proceeding pro ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.