Henny v. Segal

Background

Kimberly Ann Henny filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which allows a person in federal custody to challenge custody that allegedly violates federal law. She sued through Warden Michael Segal and challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation and application of earned time credits under the First Step Act of 2018.

Henny was serving a 70-month sentence imposed in June 2021 after a wire-fraud conviction, followed by three years of supervised release. She was housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota, when she filed the petition. By the time of the recommendation, she had been transferred to a satellite camp in Kentucky and then to a local jail on administrative status as a transfer holdover. The recommendation stated that she remained in custody and was scheduled for transfer to community confinement on November 21, 2024. Her projected release date, including the future application of earned credits, was August 12, 2025.

Henny asserted four grounds: (1) the Bureau of Prisons was not applying her earned credits; (2) the failure to apply those credits made her release date incorrect; (3) she had earned more credits than the Bureau’s records showed, including during a period when she worked at UNICOR and participated in programming; and (4) if the Bureau could not provide programming during the pandemic, she should have received relief under the CARES Act. She later stated that she was not seeking relief under the CARES Act, and the recommendation treated the fourth ground as withdrawn.

The Bureau of Prisons argued that it had correctly calculated Henny’s credits and that applying them to her sentence was premature because she had not earned credits equal to the number of days remaining in her sentence. In supplemental briefing, the Bureau reported that Henny had earned 946 program days, which it calculated as 435 earned time credits. It projected that 365 credits would be allotted toward early release and that the remaining 70 could be used for prerelease custody in a residential reentry center or home confinement.

Analysis of the Credit Calculation

The First Step Act provides 10 days of time credit for every 30 days of successful participation in eligible evidence-based recidivism-reduction programming or productive activities. A person whom the Bureau determines has a minimum or low recidivism risk, and whose risk does not increase over two consecutive assessments, may earn an additional 5 days for every 30 days of successful participation.

The recommendation rejected Henny’s interpretation that credits were “stackable”—that is, that she could earn separate credits for each program or activity taken during the same period. It concluded that the statute awards credits based on days of participation in one or more eligible programs, not on the number of programs. Henny’s calculations also treated participation days as earned-credit days in some instances, rather than applying the 10- or 15-credit rate for each 30-day participation period.

The recommendation reviewed the Bureau’s records and found no apparent error in its calculation of 946 program days as 435 earned credits. It also concluded that Henny’s claim that she was owed 90 credits for a particular period appeared mathematically incorrect. The recommendation therefore stated that Grounds One, Two, and Three should be denied to the extent they sought an order requiring the Bureau to correct the credit calculation.

Application of Credits

The recommendation separately addressed Henny’s request for immediate or monthly application of her credits. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g), credits may be applied toward prerelease custody or supervised release only when the prisoner has earned credits equal to the remainder of the imposed prison term, along with other statutory requirements.

The recommendation stated that Henny’s projected release date without the application of First Step Act credits was August 12, 2026, while the projected date including the credits was August 12, 2025. Because the 365 credits designated for early release did not yet equal the remaining portion of her sentence, the recommendation concluded that her request for immediate application of the credits was premature. It recommended denying the petition to the extent it sought immediate or monthly application.

Disposition and Procedure

The recommendation concluded that the record resolved the matter without an evidentiary hearing because no material factual dispute required one. It recommended that Henny’s § 2241 petition be denied and that the action be dismissed without prejudice.

The document was a report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. It stated that it was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals and that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after service.