Opinion
No. 3:05-CV-0391-N.
March 21, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Type of Case: This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by a federal prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Parties: Petitioner is currently confined at the Federal Correction Institution (FCI) in Seagoville, Texas. Respondent is the warden at FCI Seagoville. The court has not issued process in this case pending a preliminary screening of the habeas petition.
Statement of Fact: On April 2, 1996, Petitioner was convicted in the Northern District of Ohio for conspiracy to distribute and possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment. (Memorandum in Support of Petition (Pet.) at 1) (citing United States v. Owens, 5:95-CR-352(07) (N.D. Ohio)). In this action Petitioner challenges the BOP's calculation of good time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). (Pet. at 2). He seeks credit for an additional eighty days of good-time credits — the difference between the 47 days of good time credits earned for each year served in prison, and the 54 days he claims to be entitled to for every year imposed at the time of sentencing. (Pet. at 1-2). Findings and Conclusions: Petitioner's challenge to the method of the BOP's calculation of good time credits lacks any merit. Although the Fifth Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, other circuit courts have determined that the BOP's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) as embodied in 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 is reasonable and entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). See Perez-Olivio v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45, 48-54 (1st Cir. 2005);White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997, 999-1003 (7th Cir. 2004);Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1269-71 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2313, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002); Brown v. Hemingway, 53 Fed. Appx. 338, 2002 WL 31845147, at * 1 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2002) (unpublished) (No. 02-1948).
Federal prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the petition in this case. (See Memorandum in Support at 2 and Appendix A-D).
Moreover, this Court previously rejected good-conduct-time claims similar to the one in this case, and upheld the BOP's interpretation and application of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). See Harvey v. Joslin, No. 3:04-CV-1811-N, 2004 WL 2645550 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2004), report and recommendation adopted 2004 WL 2805818 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2004). Several other judges of this district have followed the same approach. See Williams v. Van Buren, No. 4:04-CV-525-Y, 2004 WL 3019446, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2004); Pollard v. Van Buren, No. 4:04-CV-642-A, 2004 WL 2645548, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2004);Belasco v. Bidden, No. 1:03-CV-165-C, 2004 WL 2381248, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2004); Martinez v. Wendt, No. 3:03-CV-826-L, 2003 WL 22456808, at *2-4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2003), report and recommendation adopted, 2003 WL 22724755 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2003).
Based upon these persuasive authorities, the District Court should likewise conclude that the BOP's method of calculating good-time credit is reasonable and entitled to deference. Thus, the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be summarily dismissed. See Rules 1 and 4, of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings in the District Court (Rule 1(b) permits the application of these Rules to habeas corpus petitions not covered by Rule 1(a), and Rule 4 provides that "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the district judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner."). RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the habeas corpus petition be summarily dismissed.
Petitioner relies on Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 110 S.Ct. 997, 108 L.Ed.2d 132 (1990), to argue that the rule of deference does not apply to ambiguous criminal statutes. (Memorandum in Support at 9-12). As the concurring opinion cited by Petitioner demonstrates, Crandon is easily distinguishable from the case presently before the court. There, Justice Scalia explained that the Justice Department's interpretation was not entitled to deference because:
The law in question, a criminal statute, is not administered by any agency but by the courts. It is entirely reasonable and understandable that federal officials should make available to their employees legal advice regarding its interpretation; and in a general way all agencies of the Government must interpret it in order to assure that the behavior of their employees is lawful — just as they must interpret innumerable other civil and criminal provisions in order to operate lawfully; but that is not the sort of specific responsibility for administering the law that triggers Chevron.Id. at 177, 110 S.Ct. 997.
Here, of course, the law in question is indisputably administered by the BOP, which is charged with determining whether each eligible prisoner has earned good time credit within a given year, as well as the amount of credit that the prisoner is entitled to receive, and the date on which the prisoner has served out his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3624. This is precisely the "sort of specific responsibility for administering the law that triggers Chevron." Crandon, 494 U.S. at 177, 110 S.Ct. 997. As such, this court finds Crandon inapplicable to the case at hand. See Sash v. Zenk, 344 F.Supp.2d 376, *382-383 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Petitioner Retsyn Owens, #35806-060, FCI Seagoville, P.O. Box 9000, Seagoville, Texas 75159-9000.