Harriot v. Jamison

Background

Michael Harriot, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a statute allowing a person in federal custody to challenge being held contrary to law. Harriot challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to apply 365 days of time credits that he earned under the First Step Act toward earlier release.

Harriot had been removed from the United States in 1997 under a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal. He later reentered the country and was sentenced to life imprisonment, which was reduced in 2021 to 360 months followed by eight years of supervised release. In February 2023, the Bureau told him that his earned credits would advance his projected release date from March 12, 2025, to March 12, 2024.

In October 2023, Immigration and Customs Enforcement lodged an immigration detainer asking the Bureau to provide advance notice before Harriot’s release. The detainer stated that probable cause existed to believe Harriot was removable based on a final removal order. The Bureau then refused to apply Harriot’s credits and moved his projected release date back to March 12, 2025. The Bureau did not receive copies of the earlier expedited removal order and a later reinstatement order until April 8, 2024.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. The recommendation concluded that Harriot’s failure to complete all administrative appeals should be excused and that the expedited removal order prevented application of his credits. Harriot objected.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the 1997 expedited removal order was a final order of removal for purposes of the First Step Act. That law makes a prisoner ineligible to apply earned time credits toward early release if the prisoner is subject to a final removal order. The court did not decide whether the later reinstatement order was valid because it concluded that the earlier expedited removal order was enough.

The court separately considered whether the October 2023 detainer supplied a sufficient basis for denying Harriot’s credits. It held that it did not. An immigration detainer is a nonbinding request for advance notice and temporary continuation of custody; it is not itself a removal order. The detainer did not identify the date, issuing authority, factual or legal basis, appeal status, or continuing validity of the supposed removal order. The court therefore found that the Bureau erred by relying solely on the detainer.

Despite that error, the court concluded that it could not grant habeas relief. By the time of the decision, the Bureau had the facially valid, current, and final expedited removal order on file. That order independently barred application of Harriot’s credits, so Harriot could not show that he was currently being held contrary to law under Section 2241.

The court also stated that the detainer appeared to have been the sole basis for continuing Harriot’s secure custody from March 12 to April 8, 2024, and that he might have a plausible claim for money damages for that period. The court did not decide such a damages claim because money damages cannot be awarded through a habeas petition. The opinion stated that such relief could be sought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, beginning with the required administrative claim.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres sustained Harriot’s objections in part and overruled them in part. The court denied the petition, terminated all motions, and closed the case. The court did not decide the validity of the reinstatement order or any possible damages claim.