Long v. Carter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JASON MARK LONG, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 25-3157-JWL
)
C. CARTER, Warden, FCI-Leavenworth, )
)
Respondent. )
)
_______________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, by which
he challenges the application of his First Step Act (FSA) credits by the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP). By Memorandum and Order of October 23, 2025, the Court denied the petition in
part. Specifically, because petitioner had already been transferred to pre-release custody,
the Court denied as moot petitioner’s claims by which he sought that relief based on an
error, admitted and corrected by respondent, concerning the score used to determine
petitioner’s risk of recidivism. The Court noted, however, that respondent had not
addressed whether petitioner should have been given credit for certain programming in his
June 2025 assessment, which credit might have affected petitioner’s risk determination,
which determination may in turn affect the rate at which petitioner may still earn credits
against his ultimate release date. Accordingly, the Court ordered respondent to show cause
why the Court should not order that petitioner’s credits be earned and applied as if he had
received a low recidivism determination in his June 2025 assessment. Respondent filed a
Case 5:25-cv-03157-JWL Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 2

2
supplemental response brief as ordered, but petitioner did not file a supplemental reply
brief, and the deadline for such a reply brief has long since passed. The remaining issue is
therefore ripe for ruling.
In her supplemental brief, respondent has provided the explanation missing from
her original answer to the petition. According to evidence submitted by respondent, an
inmate is not given credit for programming in an assessment until the inmate’s participation
has been reviewed, verified, and certified; and that process could not have been completed
with respect to the programming at issue (which ended at the earliest in late May 2025)
prior to petitioner’s assessment on June 5, 2025. Petitioner has not disputed that evidence.
Thus, petitioner has not shown that the BOP violated federal law with respect to that
assessment, and therefore the Court denies the petition for habeas relief in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the petition for habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby denied in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
/s/ John W. Lungstrum
Hon. John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03157-JWL Document 12 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 2