Stewart v. Eischen

Background

Fredrick Stewart filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, asking the court to address the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to award him earned time credits under the First Step Act of 2018. The petition underwent initial review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which the opinion says apply to this petition even though it was not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The First Step Act allows some prisoners to earn credits toward release from custody or earlier placement in prerelease custody by participating in qualifying recidivism-reduction programs. The statute excludes prisoners convicted under specified provisions of the Controlled Substances Act involving fentanyl. Stewart pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Illinois to distributing at least 40 grams of a substance containing fentanyl and at least 100 grams of a substance containing heroin. He was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) and was serving a five-year prison term at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota.

Stewart’s arguments

Stewart argued that the Bureau of Prisons had improperly treated the word “and” in a statutory provision as “or.” That provision concerns whether a prisoner was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which addressed courts’ deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Stewart also argued that he was not excluded from earning First Step Act credits because he had not been convicted of a crime of violence.

Recommended ruling

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended denying Stewart’s habeas petition and dismissing the matter with prejudice. The recommendation reasoned that the provision concerning organizers, leaders, managers, or supervisors was not the provision that excluded Stewart from receiving credits. Instead, the opinion identified a separate provision excluding people convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vi) or § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi), without regard to whether they held one of those leadership roles.

Because Stewart was convicted under § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi), the recommendation concluded that any dispute about the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation of the other provision was irrelevant to him. It also concluded that the exclusion did not depend on whether his offense was violent.

The document is a report and recommendation rather than a final district-court order or judgment. Its notice stated that it was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that specific written objections could be filed within 14 days after service.