White v. Warden, Fed. Corr. Institution-Cumberland
| Docket Number | Civil Action DKC-22-2371 |
| Decision Date | 31 July 2023 |
| Parties | WILLIAM A. WHITE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION-CUMBERLAND,[1] Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
William A. White, a federal prisoner incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution -Cumberland (“FCI-Cumberland”), filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking restoration of “about 10 days” of Earned Time Credits (“ETCs”) under the First Step Act. ECF No. 1 at 1. Since the filing of the petition, some of those days have been granted, due to the ongoing revision and refinement of Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) policy and procedures. A few days remain in contention, however, so the entire action is not moot.
Pursuant to the court's Order directing Respondent to file a response to the petition (ECF No. 2), Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF No. 3. Mr. White was advised of his right to respond (ECF No. 4), and did so on November 10, 2022. ECF No 5. Respondent sought an extension of time within which to file a reply to Mr. White's response (ECF No. 6), which was granted by this court. ECF No. 7. Respondent's reply was filed December 28, 2022. ECF No. 8. Thereafter, Mr. White filed a motion for leave to supplement response to motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. His motion shall be granted, and the court will construe this filing as a surreply. On March 3, 2023 Respondent filed correspondence with the court, offered as an update in conjunction with the Respondent's reply, regarding the recent recalculation of Mr. White's sentence. ECF No. 10. Mr. White has moved to strike this letter as an impermissible surreply. ECF No. 11. This motion will be denied.
Having reviewed the papers, and finding no hearing necessary, see Md. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021), the court grants respondent's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgement, and denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
The parties agree on the factual background underlying this case. Specifically, on July 21, 2022, Mr. White was transferred from Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”)-Terre Haute to Federal Transfer Center (“FTC”)-Oklahoma City. Compl., ECF No.1 at 2; Resp., ECF No. 3-1 at 2. He remained at FTC-Oklahoma City until July 25, 2022. Id. While there, he was placed in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) “for allegedly being a ‘domestic terrorist.'” ECF No. 1 at 1, 2; see also ECF No. 3-1 at 2 (). On July 25, 2022, Mr. White was transferred to FCI-Cumberland, where he remains to this day. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 3-1 at 2. Upon arrival at FCI-Cumberland, he was again “placed in the SHU from July 25, 2022 to August 22, 2022 due to unavailable bed space in general population.” ECF No. 3-1 at 2; see also ECF No. 1 at 2. On August 22, 2022, he was released from the SHU to the general population at FCI-Cumberland. Id.
Based on these facts, Mr. White explains that, pursuant to 28 CFR § 523.40, federal inmates are guaranteed to earn ETCs throughout their incaraceration, except in several circumstances, including while an inmate is housed in the SHU. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. Accordingly, while housed in SHU while in transfer status at FTC-Oklahoma City, and again once transferred to the SHU at FCI-Cumberland, Mr. White was prevented from earning ETCs. Id. at 3. He explains that his issue is “not about SHU confinement per se,” but rather that “the BOP was not permitted to impose loss of ETCs as a collateral consequence of SHU confinement without due process.” Id. at 6. Mr. White states that he was “arbitrarily placed” in SHU due to an “idiosyncratic ‘domestic terrorist' designation” and the BOP's “inability to manage its bedspace,” which cost him the ability to earn ETCs without any due process. Id. at 6. As relief, he seeks a declaration that he was “deprived . . . of ETCs without Due Process” and restoration of “all said ETCs (about 10 days).” Id. at 7.
In response, Respondent argues that Mr. White is not entitled to relief because he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies or alternatively, that Mr. White's current security designation within the institution allows him only to earn credits, but they cannot be applied until he obtains a lower security designation. ECF No. 3-1 at 9. Additionally, Respondent argues that under 28 C.F.R. § 523.41(c), Mr. White was statutorily ineligible to earn ETCs based on his housing in SHU. Id. at 12.
Mr. White responded to the Respondent's motion.[2] ECF No. 5. In addition to discussing exhaustion, Mr. White states that Respondent “didn't properly request summary judgment.” Id. at 4. He does not elaborate on what was improper about Respondent's pursuit of summary judgment.[3] Id. Next, he explains that Respondent misconstrues his Petition, as he “agree[s] that the earning and application of ETCs are separate concepts.” Id. at 5. He states that he does not seek to have his credits applied, but rather, challenges his inability to earn credits during his time in SHU. Id. He states that by misconstruing his claim, and thus not responding to it directly, Respondent “forfeits” this argument. Id. at 6.
Respondent replied on December 28, 2022, arguing again that Mr. White has not exhausted available administrative remedies, that he was provided notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, that the court should afford deference to the BOP “in the application of First Step Act (FSA) Time Credits and related statutes pursuant to Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 865 (1984),” and finally, that the “BOP is in full compliance with FSA's statutory mandate regarding the earning of Time Credits.” ECF No. 8. Additionally, Respondent discusses at length recent revisions to the First Step Act (see ECF No. 8 at 8-11), and indicated that all federal inmates' credits would soon be recalculated. Id. at 12. At the time, Respondent indicated that “if Petitioner is entitled (which is determined based on whether he was in earning status while in the SHU) to additional Time Credits, any available Time Credits may be applied accordingly, if able and in accordance with BOP Program Statement 5410.01.” Id.
Petitioner filed a Motion seeking leave to reply, which the court now grants.[4] ECF No. 9. Therein, he argues that Respondent's information regarding the updated BOP policies cannot be accepted because it is raised for the first time in a Reply, and thus prohibited under United States v. Alston, 722 F.3d 603 (4th Cir. 2013).[5] Id. at 3. He indicates that, under the new BOP program statement, “SHU inmates would be permitted to earn ETCs while in SHU unless deprived of them by a disciplinary hearing officer.” Id. He includes a FSA Time Credit recalculation sheet with his surreply, which indicates that most of the credits he seeks through this Petition were awarded to him through the recalculation done pursuant to the updated program statement. See ECF No. 9-1. However, even with the new calculations in place, he is still being denied ETCs for his time spent in transfer status in Oklahoma City, from July 21 until July 25, 2002. Id.; ECF No. 9 at 4. He states that “though this action now involves only one day of ETC, the point - that a prisoner cannot be deprived of ETCs without due process - is of increased importance.” ECF No. 9 at 4.
On March 3, 2023, Respondent filed correspondence with the court, and requested that it be construed as “an update in conjunction with the Respondent's Reply.” ECF No. 10 at 2. In this correspondence, Respondent confirms what Petitioner stated in his surreply. Namely, that Id. at 1. Based on the program statement, Respondent indicates that Mr. White is not entitled to credit for the days that he was in transfer status. Id. Specifically, “Petitioner cannot earn Time Credits while in a designation outside the institution.” Id. ().
Mr. White has moved to strike Respondent's correspondence as an impermissible surreply. ECF No. 11. His motion will be denied, as the court views this filing as a relevant update to Respondent's Reply rather than as an impermissible surreply. Further, it does not add any new information beyond what Mr. White himself proferred in his surreply, so he is not prejudiced by the inclusion of these facts in the record before the court.
Habeas corpus relief is available when a prisoner is held “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Challenges to the execution of a federal sentence are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 244 (2012). It is the responsibility of the United States Attorney General, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to compute sentences of prisoners committed to the custody of the United States or the District of Columbia and apply credit where it is due. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624 see also Leavis v. White, 898 F.2d 154 (6th...
To continue reading
Request your trial