Fortner v. Eischen

Background

Anthony Fortner, who was representing himself, was incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota, after spending 543 days at a federal facility in Texas. He alleged that he completed evidence-based programs at the Texas facility that qualified him for First Step Act Time Credits. The Bureau of Prisons did not apply the credits Fortner claimed he earned there.

Fortner filed a petition asking the court to award him between 170 and 180 additional credit days. He sought to use those credits to become eligible for prerelease custody sooner. The opinion states that the Bureau of Prisons had already applied a twelve-month sentence reduction to Fortner. Under the First Step Act, credits beyond that amount can accelerate eligibility for prerelease custody, such as placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement, but do not further reduce the sentence.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Objections

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The recommendation concluded that Fortner’s request concerned the conditions or form of his confinement rather than the fact or length of his confinement. Fortner objected, primarily challenging that legal characterization. Although he titled his filing a motion for de novo review, the court treated it as an objection to the recommendation.

Because Fortner made specific objections, the court reviewed the disputed issues from the beginning rather than deferring to the magistrate judge’s analysis.

Jurisdiction and Analysis

The court explained that, under Eighth Circuit precedent, federal courts may use habeas proceedings to consider challenges to the fact or length of confinement, but generally may not use them to consider conditions-of-confinement claims. Fortner did not argue that the credits would make him eligible for release from Bureau of Prisons custody. Instead, he argued that they should cause his custody to change earlier from imprisonment to prerelease custody. The court held that this was a conditions-of-confinement claim and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear it in a habeas petition.

The court also explained that it could either dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice or obtain Fortner’s consent to recharacterize the claim as a civil action. If recharacterized, the civil case would have to be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Fortner acknowledged that administrative appeals were still pending. The court therefore chose dismissal without prejudice, allowing Fortner to refile the claim as a civil case after fully exhausting available administrative remedies.

Disposition

The court overruled Fortner’s motion for de novo review of the report and recommendation, adopted the report and recommendation, denied Fortner’s writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court did not award the requested credits through this habeas case.

Order