Reynolds v. Eischen
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-02956
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Reynolds v. Eischen, Judge Foster denied Reynolds’s fee waiver and ordered a signed petition and $5 fee before the case could proceed.
Terrell Reynolds, whose request to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied and who was required to file a signed amended petition and pay $5 before the case could proceed.
What happened
In Reynolds v. Eischen, Terrell Reynolds challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to award him time credits under the First Step Act. He had pleaded guilty to drug-distribution and firearm offenses, and the firearm conviction is excluded from earning those credits under the statute.
The court did not decide whether Reynolds could receive credits for the part of his sentence not categorically excluded. Instead, it required him to submit a signed amended petition. The court also considered his request to proceed without paying the filing fee and found that his prison account showed he could afford the $5 fee.
Judge Foster denied Reynolds’s request to proceed without paying the fee and ordered him to submit a signed amended petition and the $5 fee. The order states that failure to do so may lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Reynolds v. Eischen · No. 0:24-cv-02956
- Dulce J. Foster
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
Terrell Reynolds filed a petition challenging the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to award him time credits under the First Step Act of 2018. He had pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Illinois to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
The First Step Act generally allows eligible prisoners to earn time credits for successfully participating in qualifying recidivism-reduction programs or productive activities. But the statute excludes prisoners serving sentences for convictions under § 924(c). The court stated that Reynolds was ineligible to earn credits for his § 924(c) conviction. The court also recognized that the law was less clear about whether a prisoner with multiple convictions and consecutive sentences could earn credits during the portion of the sentence tied to an offense not categorically excluded. The court did not resolve that issue in this order.
Procedural Requirements
Before the case could proceed, the court required Reynolds to file an amended petition bearing his signature. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires an unrepresented party to sign papers filed with the court, and it provides that the court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected.
Reynolds also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that application because the application showed that he had $1,055 in his prison trust account when he filed the case. The court found that paying the $5 filing fee would not be an unreasonable expenditure given his financial status.
Ruling
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Reynolds’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court ordered him to submit an amended, signed petition and a $5 filing fee. The order states that failure to do so may cause the court to recommend dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute; it did not itself dismiss the case.
The opinion’s discussion says the amended petition and fee were due by August 26, 2024, while the numbered order states August 27, 2024. The order does not decide the merits of Reynolds’s challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation of the First Step Act.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.