Hill v. Gunther

Opinion

1 MH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Tramain Hill, No. CV-24-03214-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Jason Gunther, 13 Respondent.

14 15 Petitioner Tramain Hill, who is confined in the Federal Correctional Institution- 16 Phoenix, filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 17 Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) and paid the filing fee. 18 I. Petition 19 In his Petition, Petitioner names Jason Gunther as Respondent. Petitioner raises 20 one ground for relief. Specifically, he claims that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is 21 unlawfully “banking” time credits earned by prisoners who are classified as medium or 22 high risk for recidivism and is only applying these credits once the prisoners have achieved 23 a minimum or low score on the recidivism risk assessment. Petitioner asserts that he is one 24 of many prisoners who can never achieve a minimum or low risk score due to factors, such 25 as criminal history and age, that cannot be changed. According to Petitioner, the BOP’s 26 practice is contrary to the First Step Act (FSA) and in direct conflict with established law. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Discussion 2 A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition “[i]f it plainly 3 appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not 4 entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases 5 (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)); see also, e.g., Jackson v. Ashcroft, 6 347 F. Supp. 2d 924, 925 (D. Or. 2004) (dismissing § 2241 Petition pursuant to Rule 4). 7 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the Petition summarily pursuant to 8 Rule 4. 9 Petitioner’s argument overlooks a “crucial part of the FSA.” Brown v. Garrett, 10 7:22-cv-00551-AMM-JHE, 2022 WL 18161601, at *3 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 22, 2022), report 11 and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 130519 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 9, 2023). Under the 12 express terms of that statute, a prisoner is free to earn time credits as an inmate with a 13 medium or higher risk recidivism level, but the BOP cannot apply those credits to the 14 prisoner’s sentence unless the prisoner has been either categorized as minimum or low risk 15 to recidivate or approved by the warden subject to certain conditions. Torres v. Gutierrez, 16 No. CV-23-00569-TUC-JCH, 2024 WL 4182237, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 13, 2024) (citing 17 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)); see also Ramsland v. Hudson, CV-24-00360-TUC-CKJ (MAA), 18 2024 WL 5058607, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 19 2024 WL 5056454 (D. Ariz. Dec. 10, 2024); Lopez v. Gutierrez, No. CV-23-00534-TUC- 20 RM, 2024 WL 4026215, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 3, 2024), appeal docketed, No. 24-5767 (9th 21 Cir. Sept. 23, 2024). Although 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C) states that “[t]ime credits earned 22 under this paragraph . . . shall be applied toward time in prerelease custody or supervised 23 release” (emphasis added), the next sentence in that subsection reads, “[t]he Director of the 24 Bureau of Prisons shall transfer eligible prisoners, as determined under section 3624(g), 25 into prerelease custody or supervised release,” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C) (emphasis 26 added). Thus, when read as a whole, 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C) mandates the application 27 of time credits to eligible prisoners only. Ramsland, 2024 WL 5058607, at *2; Johnston 28 v. Colbert, CV-22-00260-TUC-SHR (EJM), 2023 WL 9510557, at *8 (D. Ariz. Aug. 15, 1 | 2023) (“The FSA allows prisoners who successfully complete evidence-based recidivism 2| reduction programming or productive activities to earn time credits; however, time credits are only applied to eligible prisoners as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g).”), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 418123 (D. Ariz. Feb. 5, 2024), aff'd, No. 24-850, 5 | 2024 WL 4903725 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2024). Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument that the BOP is violating the FSA by withholding application of time credits to prisoners classified as medium or high risk for recidivism is plainly meritless, and his Petition will be 8 | dismissed. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 9| ITIS ORDERED: 10 (1) Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and this case are 11 | dismissed. 12 (2) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 13 Dated this 19th day of February, 2025. 14 15 a 3 16 7 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-