Faleide v. Eischen

Background

Eric Alan Faleide filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his First Step Act time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3632. He was sentenced to 120 months in prison on September 7, 2021. The opinion states that he began earning time credits on October 21, 2021, and had earned 365 days toward early release and 15 days toward prerelease custody. His projected statutory release date was March 20, 2028.

Claims and jurisdiction

Faleide raised two claims. First, he argued that the Bureau of Prisons had misinterpreted the First Step Act and therefore wrongly calculated when he should have begun earning credits at a rate of 15 days for every 30 days of programming. Second, he argued that he should have received credits beginning on his sentencing date and for days when he was transferred between facilities. He requested an order requiring a recalculation.

The court explained that habeas relief is generally used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement. It concluded that Faleide’s requested relief would affect only the date of potential placement in prerelease custody. Because he had already earned the maximum 365 days of credit toward his supervised-release date, the court reasoned that any additional credits would apply to his prerelease-custody placement date. The court therefore characterized the claims as challenges to his place of confinement, rather than to the fact or duration of confinement.

Recommendation and effect

The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because habeas was not the proper procedural vehicle for Faleide’s claims. It recommended that his petition be DENIED and that the action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion expressly states that, because the court lacked jurisdiction, it did not address the merits of the parties’ arguments about the two credit-calculation claims.