Kuzmenko v. Warden, FCI Waseca
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-04381
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Kuzmenko v. Warden, FCI Waseca, Judge Magnuson’s case received a recommendation to deny habeas relief and dismiss the action without prejudice.
Vera Kuzmenko, who sought transfer to prerelease custody or supervised release, and the Warden, FCI Waseca, as respondent. The recommendation also concerns the Bureau of Prisons’ authority over the place and timing of Kuzmenko’s confinement.
What happened
In Kuzmenko v. Warden, FCI Waseca, Vera Kuzmenko asked for an order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to transfer her to prerelease custody or supervised release based on earned time credits under the First Step Act.
The report concluded that her credits could not begin supervised release immediately because the law allows that transfer no more than 12 months early. It also concluded that a request to move from prison to a residential reentry center challenged the place of confinement, not the legality or length of custody, so it could not be brought through a habeas petition.
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended denying the petition and dismissing the action without prejudice. The case listing identifies Judge Paul Magnuson; the report stated that it was a recommendation, not a final order or judgment.
The detailed version
- Kuzmenko v. Warden, FCI Waseca · No. 0:24-cv-04381
- Paul Magnuson
- Jan. 3, 2025
Background
Vera Kuzmenko filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota. She had been convicted in the Eastern District of California on multiple charges, including wire and mail fraud, and sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment followed by 36 months of supervised release.
Kuzmenko argued that she had earned at least 1,020 First Step Act earned time credits. She claimed those credits required her transfer to prerelease custody by November 15, 2024. She asked for immediate transfer to prerelease custody, community placement, or supervised release.
The report and recommendation was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois.
Supervised Release
The report distinguished prerelease custody from supervised release. Prerelease custody is a transitional part of imprisonment that may occur outside a traditional prison, such as in a residential reentry center or at home. Supervised release is community supervision that begins after imprisonment ends.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(3), the Bureau of Prisons may use earned time credits to begin a prisoner’s supervised-release term early, but no more than 12 months before the end of Bureau of Prisons custody. That custody includes time in prison and any prerelease custody. Kuzmenko’s projected release date, before applying earned time credits, was September 16, 2027. The report therefore concluded that the credits could move her release date no earlier than September 16, 2026 and did not entitle her to immediate supervised release.
Prerelease Custody and Habeas Jurisdiction
The report treated Kuzmenko’s request for transfer to a residential reentry center as a challenge to the place of confinement. Habeas relief under § 2241 is available when a prisoner challenges the legality of the conviction or the length of detention. The report concluded that moving a prisoner from a prison to a residential reentry center changes the place of confinement but does not end custody or challenge its legality. The prerelease-custody claim was therefore not cognizable, meaning it could not be pursued through a habeas petition.
The report considered whether the claim should instead be treated as an ordinary civil claim. It concluded that recharacterizing the action would not benefit Kuzmenko because the statutory provisions governing the Bureau of Prisons’ designation of a prisoner’s place of imprisonment limit federal-court review of that decision. The report also noted that the Administrative Procedure Act does not provide review of Bureau of Prisons decisions made under 18 U.S.C. § 3621.
Recommended Disposition
Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommended that Kuzmenko’s § 2241 petition be denied and that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The report stated that the recommendation was not a District Court order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It allowed the parties to file written objections within the period stated in the report and the applicable local rule.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.