From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Belasco v. Bidden

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Abilene Division
Oct 22, 2004
Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-165-C (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-165-C.

October 22, 2004


ORDER


Petitioner, Rene R. Belasco, filed an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Petitioner was incarcerated in FCI Big Spring at the time he filed his petition. His petition was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division on July 14, 2003. Thereafter, the petition was transferred to this Court because FCI Big Spring is located in the Abilene Division of the Northern District.

This Court denied Petitioner's § 2241 petition on September 29, 2003, finding that Petitioner did not have a constitutionally protected right to good-time credits. Petitioner appealed the denial, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to this Court for further development of the record, finding that

the factual record is undeveloped, particularly with regard to the time Belasco has served and the good-time for which he has been credited. In addition, the BOP has not had an opportunity to clarify, for the record, its methods of calculating good-time in general or Belasco's good-time credit in particular.

Respondent has custody of Petitioner pursuant to a judgment and sentence out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Petitioner was convicted on July 13, 1990, and sentenced to 216 months' incarceration.

Petitioner is not attacking his conviction but, instead, argues that he is receiving only 46 days of good-time credits per year, instead of the regular standard 54 days per year. He argues that his good-time credits have been calculated in a manner contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) and he has been deprived of earned good-time credits without due process of law.

The Court has considered Petitioner's § 2241 petition, the Government's response, and Petitioner's traverse.

The Fifth Circuit has yet to determine if § 3624(b) creates a constitutionally protected interest in good-time credits. See Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (assuming without deciding); Belasco v. Bidden, No. 03-11049 (5th Cir. March 1, 2004).

The Government has provided the Court with its rules and regulations regarding the calculation of good-time credits for federal inmates, and the manner in which Petitioner's good-time credits have been calculated.

Section 3624(b) reads,

Subject to paragraph (2), a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year[,] other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner's life, may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner's sentence, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner's term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term, subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations. Subject to paragraph (2), if the Bureau determines that, during that year, the prisoner has not satisfactorily complied with such institutional regulations, the prisoner shall receive no such credit toward service of the prisoner's sentence or shall receive such lesser credit as the Bureau determines to be appropriate. . . . Subject to paragraph (2), credit for the last year or portion of a year of the term of imprisonment shall be prorated and credited within the last six weeks of the sentence.

Petitioner's challenge to the method of the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of good-time credits is without merit. Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001); Martinez v. Wendt, No. 3:03-CV-0826-L, 2003 WL 22456808 at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2003); Brown v. Hemingway, No. 02-1948, 2002 WL 31845147, at *1, 53 Fed. App. 338 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2002) (unpub. dec.).

Further, the "federal good time statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624, makes it clear that it is the Bureau of Prisons, not the court, that determines whether a federal prisoner should receive good time credit." United States v. Evans, 1 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1993); Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 213 (11th Cir. 1992) ("The Bureau of Prisons is, however, responsible for computing [the] sentence and applying appropriate good time credit.")

For the reasons stated above and the facts and law set forth in the Government's response, the Court finds that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be denied and this cause dismissed with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

All relief not expressly granted is denied and any pending motions are denied.


Summaries of

Belasco v. Bidden

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Abilene Division
Oct 22, 2004
Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-165-C (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2004)
Case details for

Belasco v. Bidden

Case Details

Full title:RENE R. BELASCO, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH BIDDEN, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Abilene Division

Date published: Oct 22, 2004

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-165-C (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2004)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Van Buren

See White v. Scibana, No. 04-2410, 390 F.3d 997, 2004 WL 2749863, at *3-4 (7th Cir. Dec. 2, 2004);…

Thompson v. Van Buren

cert. den'd, 535 U.S. 1105 (2002); Brown v. Hemingway, No. 02-1948, 2002 WL 31845147, at * 1 (6th Cir. Dec.…