Ferebe v. Jamison

Background

Donald Lee Ferebe filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure federal prisoners may use to challenge the execution of their sentences. When he filed the petition, he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York, and was proceeding without a lawyer.

Ferebe sought immediate release to home confinement under the Second Chance Act and the First Step Act. He challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ handling of his pre-release paperwork and argued that the First Step Act required his immediate placement in pre-release custody.

Ferebe had been convicted in 1997 of committing a violent crime in furtherance of racketeering activity and possessing a weapon in connection with a crime of violence. His sentence on the first count was later reduced to 360 months, and his sentence on the weapons count was 60 months, to run consecutively. The Bureau of Prisons calculated a projected release date of September 28, 2025, and a home-detention eligibility date of March 28, 2025. A Bureau case-management coordinator had recommended that he be considered for placement in a Bureau-managed community corrections center.

Administrative exhaustion

The court stated that federal prisoners generally must complete the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative-remedy process before filing a § 2241 petition. That process requires an inmate to raise the concern informally with staff, submit a formal request to the warden, appeal to the regional director, and then appeal to the Bureau’s general counsel.

Ferebe acknowledged that he had not completed this process. He argued that exhaustion would be futile because the process could overlap with the date on which he could be placed in a residential reentry center or home confinement. The court rejected that argument. It found that the earliest potential pre-release placement date was more than 150 days after the challenged action, leaving enough time for the administrative process. The court also relied on decisions holding that an approaching release date or claimed entitlement to immediate release does not by itself excuse exhaustion.

The court therefore concluded that Ferebe’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies barred habeas relief on his challenge to the Bureau’s handling of his pre-release placement.

First Step Act

The court separately rejected Ferebe’s assertion that the First Step Act required immediate placement in pre-release custody. The statute allows eligible federal inmates to earn credits through participation in recidivism-reduction programs or productive activities. Those credits may be used toward early supervised release or transfer to home or community-based confinement.

The court explained that Ferebe was ineligible to receive those credits because he was serving a sentence that included a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The court also stated that he was not entitled to immediate placement under the First Step Act.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Ferebe’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court noted that public Bureau of Prisons information indicated that Ferebe had been transferred to a residential reentry center in Baltimore, consistent with the respondent’s representation that he had received a January 2025 placement date. The court stated that no further relief was warranted, directed the respondent to provide Ferebe with a copy of the order, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.