Cullar v. Warden, FCI Sandstone
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:24-cv-03741
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Cullar v. Warden, Judge Bryan denied the petition challenging Cullar’s PATTERN score and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Paris M. Cullar, whose § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ PATTERN-score calculation was denied and whose action was dismissed with prejudice; the Warden prevailed.
What happened
Paris M. Cullar v. Warden, FCI Sandstone concerned Cullar’s challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his PATTERN risk score. He said his later “Low” score should apply from the start of his sentence and provide 65 additional earned-time credits.
Cullar objected to a recommendation that his claim be dismissed, arguing that he was seeking a shorter sentence through additional credits. He also filed an amended petition, but the court found it was filed too late.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan struck the amended petition as untimely, overruled Cullar’s objection, adopted the recommendation, denied the original petition, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court ruled that a challenge to a PATTERN-score adjustment could not be brought through this type of prison-custody petition.
The detailed version
- Cullar v. Warden, FCI Sandstone · No. 0:24-cv-03741
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
Paris M. Cullar, who represented himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his PATTERN score. PATTERN is a risk-assessment tool the Bureau uses to evaluate an incarcerated person’s likelihood of reoffending and potential for serious misconduct. The score can affect eligibility for incentives, including earned-time credits.
Cullar stated that his score was “Medium” before his resentencing under Amendment 821 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and “Low” afterward. He argued that the “Low” score should apply from the beginning of his sentence, which he said would provide 65 additional earned-time credits.
Report and Recommendation and Amended Petition
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended dismissing the petition because Cullar’s claim involved prisoner classification and eligibility for rehabilitative programs and therefore was not cognizable, meaning it could not be decided, through a § 2241 petition.
Cullar objected to that recommendation. On the same day, he filed an amended petition, stating that he intended to avoid debate about whether his claim was legally viable and to make the recommendation moot. The court applied the rule allowing a pleading to be amended without permission within 21 days after service of the original pleading or a responsive pleading or motion. Because Cullar filed the amended petition more than 21 days after his original petition, and the Warden had not filed a responsive pleading, the court struck the amended petition as untimely.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Cullar specifically objected. It also said that filings by people representing themselves are read liberally.
Cullar argued that he was asking for an order that would make his sentence 65 days shorter and that courts had exercised jurisdiction over some petitions involving eligibility for earned-time credits under the First Step Act. The court concluded that this description did not match his original petition. The court said Cullar was actually asking it to order the Bureau of Prisons to determine whether his PATTERN score was proper, recalculate the score, and award credits based on the recalculated score.
Relying on decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the District of Minnesota, the court held that challenges to PATTERN-score adjustments are beyond the scope of a § 2241 petition. The court found no other clear error in the recommendation.
Disposition
The court ordered that:
- The amended petition was stricken as untimely.
- Cullar’s objection to the recommendation was overruled.
- The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation was adopted.
- The original petition was denied.
- The action was dismissed with prejudice.
The court directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.