Gallop v. Bureau of Prisons

Background

Teresa Gallop filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of her sentence under the First Step Act and the Second Chance Act. She asked the court to order the Bureau to provide additional First Step Act time credits and to transfer her immediately to prerelease custody.

The opinion states that, when Gallop filed the petition, she had earned 365 days of credits toward release and 610 days of credits toward prerelease custody in a residential reentry center or home confinement. The Bureau of Prisons’ inmate locator showed that she was then at a residential reentry office.

Reasons for the Recommendation

The court concluded that Gallop’s claims were moot, meaning that later events had removed any live dispute that the court could remedy. The record showed that she had received the 365 days of credits toward release and was already in a residential reentry center. As a result, an order addressing those issues would have no practical effect.

The court also found that no recognized exception to mootness applied. It stated that Gallop did not allege a continuing or related injury, that the same situation was unlikely to repeat, that there was no indication the Bureau had acted to avoid review, and that the case was not a certified class action.

The court gave additional reasons for recommending denial even if the claims were not moot. It stated that the Bureau of Prisons has exclusive authority to decide prisoner placement, including whether home detention or residential reentry placement is appropriate. The First Step Act and Second Chance Act did not remove that authority. The court further stated that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to serve their sentences in a particular facility or place of confinement, or an enforceable right to a 12-month residential reentry placement.

Finally, the court explained that a habeas petition may challenge the fact or duration of confinement, but Gallop’s request concerned the place of confinement rather than the legality or length of her detention. The court therefore stated that habeas was not the proper vehicle for the requested transfer.

Disposition and Procedure

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that Teresa Gallop’s request for habeas relief under § 2241 be DENIED. The document is a report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. It stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served and that the recommendation was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.