Eric Flint v. Warden Ian Healy

N.D. Ohio

Eric Flint v. Warden Ian Healy

DecidedOctober 29, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-01645

StatusUnknown

This text of Eric Flint v. Warden Ian Healy (Eric Flint v. Warden Ian Healy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eric Flint v. Warden Ian Healy, (N.D. Ohio 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Eric Flint, ) CASE NO. 4:25 CV 1645 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN ) vs. ) ) Warden Ian Healy, ) Memorandum of Opinion and Order ) Respondent. ) This matter is before the Court upon the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5). For the following reasons, the Petition is DENIED and the Motion to Dismiss is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED. Petitioner Eric Flint filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against respondent Warden Ian Healy. Petitioner alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) miscalculated his entitlement to Federal Time Credits (“FTC”) under the First Step Act which can be applied towards early transfer to supervised release. 1 A petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a federal inmate under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is proper where the inmate is challenging the manner in which his sentence is being executed. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998). This includes when an inmate alleges improper calculation of First Step Act time credits. See Hernandez v. Lamanna, 16 Fed. App'x 317, 320 (6th Cir. 2001) (Section 2241 “is reserved for challenges to the execution of a sentence, such as the computation of parole or sentence credits”). The Petition is properly before the Court. Respondent maintains that the Petition must be dismissed as moot because there is no longer a live case or controversy given that respondent has now provided petitioner with the relief he requested in his Petition. Although petitioner was granted an extension of time to respond to respondent’s motion, no opposition has been filed. Accordingly, it is undisputed that upon receiving the Petition, the BOP awarded petitioner the additional FTCs he seeks. (Doc. 5 Ex.1). Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is unopposed and granted for all the reasons stated therein. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied and respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is unopposed and granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Dated: 10/29/25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Eric Flint, ) CASE NO. 4:25 CV 1645 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN ) vs. ) ) Warden Ian Healy, ) Memorandum of Opinion and Order ) Respondent. ) This matter is before the Court upon the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5). For the following reasons, the Petition is DENIED and the Motion to Dismiss is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED. Petitioner Eric Flint filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against respondent Warden Ian Healy. Petitioner alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) miscalculated his entitlement to Federal Time Credits (“FTC”) under the First Step Act which can be applied towards early transfer to supervised release. 1 A petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a federal inmate under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is proper where the inmate is challenging the manner in which his sentence is being executed. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998). This includes when an inmate alleges improper calculation of First Step Act time credits. See Hernandez v. Lamanna, 16 Fed. App'x 317, 320 (6th Cir. 2001) (Section 2241 “is reserved for challenges to the execution of a sentence, such as the computation of parole or sentence credits”). The Petition is properly before the Court. Respondent maintains that the Petition must be dismissed as moot because there is no longer a live case or controversy given that respondent has now provided petitioner with the relief he requested in his Petition. Although petitioner was granted an extension of time to respond to respondent’s motion, no opposition has been filed. Accordingly, it is undisputed that upon receiving the Petition, the BOP awarded petitioner the additional FTCs he seeks. (Doc. 5 Ex.1). Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is unopposed and granted for all the reasons stated therein. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied and respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is unopposed and granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Dated: 10/29/25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Eric Flint v. Warden Ian Healy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-flint-v-warden-ian-healy-ohnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack