Smith v. Eischen
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:23-cv-02866
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Smith v. Eischen, Judge Bryan dismissed without prejudice Smith’s habeas petition, ruling earned-credit disputes affecting prerelease placement challenge custody conditions.
Darrell D. Smith, whose challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ earned-time-credit calculation was dismissed without prejudice; Respondent B. Eischen prevailed on the petition.
What happened
In Smith v. Eischen, Darrell D. Smith challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his First Step Act earned time credits. He claimed the Bureau failed to credit 24 transit days and reduced his credit rate, causing a 35-day loss.
Smith had already received the maximum 365-day reduction to his sentence. The court said any additional credits could affect only when he became eligible for home confinement or placement in a residential reentry center, not the length of his sentence.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Smith’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissed the petition without prejudice because habeas relief was not the proper way to challenge those custody-placement issues.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Eischen · No. 0:23-cv-02866
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Mar. 7, 2025
Background
Darrell D. Smith, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his earned time credits under the First Step Act. Smith is serving a 175-month prison term after pleading guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.
Smith alleged that the Bureau of Prisons failed to award credits for 24 days he spent traveling between Bureau facilities. He also alleged that the Bureau improperly reduced his credit rate from 15 days for each 30-day period to 10 days for each 30-day period between December 21, 2018, and July 31, 2019. He claimed these errors caused a total loss of 35 days of earned credits.
A magistrate judge recommended denying habeas relief. The recommendation concluded that Smith had already received the maximum 365-day reduction to his sentence from earned time credits. As a result, any additional credits could affect only his eligibility for prerelease placement in home confinement or a residential reentry center, rather than the length of his sentence.
Court’s analysis
The court agreed with the magistrate judge. Under the First Step Act, eligible prisoners may earn credits through qualifying programs and activities. Up to 365 days of those credits may reduce the prisoner’s sentence. Additional credits may instead advance the date for placement in home confinement or a residential reentry center while the prisoner remains in Bureau of Prisons custody.
The court treated those placement decisions as challenges to the conditions or place of confinement. It explained that Eighth Circuit precedent does not allow a habeas petition to challenge conditions of confinement when the prisoner is not challenging the validity of the conviction or the length of detention. The court found no basis for concluding that the First Step Act changed that precedent.
The court also declined to consider Smith’s new argument that the First Step Act arbitrarily discriminates against people serving sentences longer than 36 months. That argument had not been presented to the magistrate judge and could not be raised for the first time in an objection to the recommendation. The court further stated that the argument amounted to a new claim that could not be added through an objection.
Disposition
The court overruled Smith’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and dismissed Smith’s petition without prejudice. The ruling did not resolve whether the Bureau of Prisons correctly calculated the disputed credits; it held that habeas was not the proper vehicle for the claimed effect on prerelease placement.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.