Gallop v. Bureau of Prisons
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-03156
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Gallop v. Bureau of Prisons, Judge Magnuson’s court recommended denying and dismissing three habeas petitions without prejudice because they concerned prison placement, not sentence duration.
Teresa Gallop’s three habeas petitions were affected. The recommendation would deny the petitions without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss the three cases, while leaving open the possibility of pursuing a non-habeas claim.
What happened
In Gallop v. Bureau of Prisons, Teresa Gallop filed three petitions challenging how the Federal Bureau of Prisons applied the First Step Act’s time credits to prerelease custody. She argued that her credits were miscalculated or that she was already eligible for transfer to prerelease custody.
The court concluded that Gallop was challenging where she would serve her sentence, rather than the total length of her confinement. It therefore determined that habeas petitions were not the proper vehicle and that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz, in a report and recommendation submitted to Judge Paul Magnuson’s court, recommended that the petitions be denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and that the three cases be dismissed. The report was not a final order and could be challenged through written objections.
The detailed version
- Gallop v. Bureau of Prisons · No. 0:24-cv-03156
- Paul Magnuson
- Oct. 9, 2024
Background
Teresa Gallop filed three petitions for a writ of habeas corpus while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota. Each petition alleged that the Federal Bureau of Prisons had failed to perform duties under the First Step Act of 2018.
The First Step Act allows eligible federal prisoners to earn time credits by participating in qualifying programs. Up to 365 days of those credits may be used to shorten the prisoner’s overall term of imprisonment. Remaining credits may be used to advance eligibility for prerelease custody, such as placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement.
Gallop did not claim that the Bureau of Prisons failed to apply credits toward shortening her overall sentence. The materials she submitted showed that the Bureau had applied 365 days of credits, the maximum allowed for that purpose. In one case, she claimed that the Bureau had miscalculated her credits and that a correct calculation would have made her eligible for earlier transfer to prerelease custody. In the other two cases, she claimed that she was already eligible for transfer and that the Bureau was failing to make the transfer.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the petitions under the screening rule governing habeas cases. It concluded that the claims were not proper habeas claims and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction. According to the report, habeas relief may be used to challenge the fact or total duration of confinement, but not merely to seek a different custodial arrangement, such as serving more of a sentence in home confinement or a residential reentry center.
The court noted that one claim might also be moot because Gallop’s asserted eligibility for immediate transfer could make additional time credits meaningless. It did not decide that issue because it found a separate jurisdictional problem affecting all three petitions.
The court also considered whether Gallop’s filings could be reinterpreted as another type of civil claim. It declined to recommend that approach, noting the potential filing-fee consequences and possible limits on future fee-free civil filings for a prisoner. The report stated that Gallop remained free to pursue a non-habeas claim in an appropriate court or venue.
Recommendation and procedural posture
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that Gallop’s three habeas petitions be denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and that the three cases be dismissed. The report and recommendation stated that it was not a final order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. The notice allowed the parties to file written objections within the period specified by the applicable local rule.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.