United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
following Recommended Disposition (âRecommendationâ) has been
sent to United States District D. P. Marshall, Jr. Either
party may file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1)
specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your
objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court
within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may
result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
Justice McCallister (“McCallister”) is
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution-Low in
Forrest City, Arkansas, where he is serving a 108-month
sentence for bank robbery and possessing a firearm during the
February 25, 2019, McCallister filed a pro se
Petition for Writ Habeas Corpus, with supporting brief,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docs. 1-2.
McCallister contends the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) refuses to properly compute his release
date as required by the recently enacted First Step Act of
2018. According to McCallister, the BOP's computed
release date of June 11, 2019 denies him 63 days of earned good
conduct credit and deprives him of an earlier release date of
April 9, 2019. Doc. 2 at 3-4; Doc. 8.
Response, Warden Dewayne Hendrix argues McCallister's
Petition is premature and should be dismissed. Doc.
6. On April 9, 2019, McCallister filed a Motion to Rule
in Default and Award Prison Credit Days. Doc. 8.
reasons stated below, the Court recommends that
McCallister's habeas Petition be dismissed, without
federal prisoner may bring a habeas claim under § 2241
to challenge the execution of his sentence in the district
where he is incarcerated. Metheny v. Morrison, 307
F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002) (§ 2241 habeas petition is the
proper vehicle for a prisoner's request for good time
credits to reduce length of imprisonment and must be brought
in the district of incarceration). However, McCallister's
claim is prematurely asserted because: (1) he relies on a new
law that is not yet in effect; and (2) he has not exhausted
his administrative remedies, which he must do in order to
allow the BOP an opportunity to adjust his sentence.
The First Step Act of 2018
relies entirely on the First Step Act of 2018, S. 756, 115th
Cong. (2018) to justify the requested adjustment to his
federal sentence. Despite McCallister's assertion that
the BOP has acted to delay implementing the new law, the
relevant provisions of the new law, involving good conduct
time, are not yet in effect. As another district court
Petitioner is correct that Section 102(b)(1) of the First
Step Act of 2018 amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) to permit
federal inmates to earn 54 days of good conduct time for each
year of the sentence imposed. However, this provision has not
yet taken effect.
In accordance with Section 102(b)(2) of the Act, the
amendments made in this section only take effect when the
Attorney General completes the “risk and needs
assessment system” required by Section 101(a) of the
Act. Section 101(a) does not require completion of the system
until 210 days after the Act's enactment. Thus, Section
102(b)(1) will not take effect until approximately July 2019.
Consequently, Petitioner's claim that the BOP must
immediately recalculate his sentence pursuant to the First
Step Act lacks merit.
Rizzolo v. Puentes, No. 1:19-cv-00290-SKO (HC),
20019 WL 1229772 (E.D. Cal. March 15, 2019).
the Court concludes that McCallister's request for a
reduced sentence, based on provisions of the First Step Act