Minix v. Hampshire House, Director et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Joshua J. Minix
v. 	Case No. 19-cv-427-PB
Walter Davies, Director, Hampshire
House; and J. Ray Ormond, Regional
Director, Bureau of Prisons,
Northeast Regional Office
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is petitioner Joshua J. Minix’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the calculation of his federal prison
sentence by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). 	The matter
is before the undersigned magistrate judge for preliminary
review to determine whether the petition is facially valid and
may proceed. 	See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases (“§ 2254 Rules”); § 2254 Rule 1(b) (allowing application
of the § 2254 Rules to any habeas petition).
Background
Minix asserts that he is presently incarcerated at the
Hampshire House, serving a sentence imposed by the District of
Vermont in United States v. Minix, No. 5:13-cr-053-01 (D. Vt.).
On October 14, 2014, that court imposed an eighty-seven month
sentence. 	See Oct. 14, 2014 J., id. (ECF No. 99). 	Minix
Case 1:19-cv-00427-PB Document 2 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 5

2
asserts here that he is scheduled to be released from
incarceration on August 5, 2019.
In his petition, Minix invokes Section 102(b) of the
recently-enacted First Step Act of 2018, which, inter alia,
amends 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1), the statute which authorizes and
governs the BOP’s calculation of federal sentences imposed by
the federal courts. 	Section 102(b)(1) amends § 3624(b)(1) by
raising the amount of good-time credit federal prisoners may
receive, for each year of their sentence, from forty-seven days
to fifty-four days.
Minix now challenges the BOP’s calculation of his sentence
and release date, and asks the court to direct the BOP to grant
him additional good-time credit. 	Minix contends that under §
102(b)(1), he is entitled to an additional seven days of good-
time credit for each full year of his seven-years-and-three-
months sentence, and an additional 2 days for the remaining
three months of his sentence, amounting to a total of fifty-one
additional days of good-time credit. 	Applying that figure to
his presently calculated August 5, 2019 release date, Minix
claims he should be released on June 15, 2019.
Minix states that the BOP has declined to recalculate his
sentence based on the First Step Act, and further that the BOP
does not intend to make any good-time credit calculation changes
Case 1:19-cv-00427-PB Document 2 Filed 04/26/19 Page 2 of 5

3
until July 2019 which, Minix alleges, will deprive him of good-
time credit to which he is entitled under § 102(b).
Discussion
I. 	Standard
In undertaking § 2254 Rule 4 preliminary review, this court
decides whether the petition contains sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face and cognizable in a federal habeas action. 	See
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts
are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that
appears legally insufficient on its face.”). 	When a habeas
petitioner is proceeding pro se, the assertions contained in the
petition are construed liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
II. 	Good-Time Credit Under the First Step Act
In his petition, Minix seeks an order giving him the extra
good-time credits he asserts he is due under section 102(b)(1).
Courts that have issued rulings on similar claims have generally
concluded that section 102(b)(1)’s effective date hinges on an
event that has not yet occurred, namely, the Attorney General’s
completion of a prisoner “risk and needs assessment system,”
which Congress has required the Attorney General to complete by
Case 1:19-cv-00427-PB Document 2 Filed 04/26/19 Page 3 of 5

4
a date in July 2019. 	See, e.g., Johnson v. Bureau of Prisons,
No. 4:19-cv-224-O, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62448, at *4, 2019 WL
1569360, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2019); Powell, 2019 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 60012, at *6, 2019 WL 1521972, at *1; United States
v. Bellah, No. 2:12-CR-20016-001, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56076,
at *1 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 2, 2019); Roy v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons,
No. 2:19-CV-59-RMP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56064, at *4, 2019 WL
1441622, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 1, 2019); Nichols v. Burch, No.
CV 19-00076-TUC-RM (BGM), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41595, at *4 (D.
Ariz. Mar. 12, 2019).
“Because the BOP has no authority to recalculate
[petitioner]’s good-time credit according to the First Step Act
until the relevant provisions take effect in approximately July
2019, the question of whether the BOP erred in administering
[petitioner]’s sentence on that basis is premature.” 	Roy, 2019
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56064, at *3, 2019 WL 1441622, at *2.
Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss, as premature,
Minix’s petition, in which he claims that he is entitled to an
immediate recalculation of his good-time credits under § 102(b).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss Minix’s petition (Doc. No. 1) as premature. 	Any
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
Case 1:19-cv-00427-PB Document 2 Filed 04/26/19 Page 4 of 5

5
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended upon
motion. 	Failure to file objections within the specified time
waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016).
_______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 26, 2019
cc: Joshua J. Minix, pro se
Case 1:19-cv-00427-PB Document 2 Filed 04/26/19 Page 5 of 5