Hernandez v. Eischen

Background

Matthew Hernandez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of First Step Act time credits. He sought earlier transfer to a residential reentry center or home confinement. He also appeared to ask that his credits be applied toward release from prison and the start of supervised release.

Hernandez was serving a 156-month prison sentence followed by 10 years of supervised release after a conviction for distributing methamphetamine. He said he had completed 1,624 eligible days of programming and believed the Bureau of Prisons had undercounted his credits, delaying his possible transfer by nearly a month. The government argued that the Bureau had correctly determined when Hernandez became eligible to earn credits at the higher rate. It also stated that Hernandez had been reviewed for a seven-month residential reentry center placement plus 220 time-credit days.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the time-sensitive circumstances justified excusing the usual requirement that Hernandez first complete the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative grievance process.

The court then determined that Hernandez’s request for earlier placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement was moot because he had already been transferred to a residential reentry facility during the case. The court found that none of the recognized exceptions to mootness applied.

The court also held that, even if the claim were not moot, a challenge to the place of confinement is not a claim that can be brought through a federal-custody habeas petition. Such a petition can address the fact or duration of custody, but the court said that placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement concerns the place of custody. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over that claim.

The court separately considered whether Hernandez was challenging the length of his prison sentence by asking that his credits be applied toward his release. It found that the parties appeared to agree that he had received the maximum 365 days of credits that could be applied against his sentence and that his projected release date was April 5, 2025. Because the record showed no dispute about the lawful duration of his custody, the court recommended denying the petition.

Recommendation and procedural posture

Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended that Hernandez’s § 2241 petition be denied as moot and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that the matter be dismissed without prejudice.

The document was a report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment. It stated that the parties could file written objections within the period specified by the local rules and that the report was not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.