Cullar v. Warden

Background

Paris M. Cullar, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of time credits under the First Step Act. He asked the court to require the Bureau to recalculate credits he expected to earn in the future, including credits he expected to earn after transfer to prerelease custody.

Cullar was serving a 135-month sentence after a conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. He was participating in the First Step Act’s evidence-based recidivism-reduction program. A June 28, 2025 assessment stated that he had earned 315 First Step Act credits and showed a projected First Step Act release date of January 1, 2031. It also showed a conditional release date of November 12, 2030, and 615 conditional placement days, resulting in a conditional placement date of March 7, 2029.

Cullar argued that, based on the time remaining before his conditional release date, he should be able to earn 981 additional conditional placement days. He claimed the Bureau’s alleged undercount would delay his transfer to prerelease custody, causing loss of employment income, loss of consortium, separation from his family, and exposure to a dangerous custodial environment.

While considering Cullar’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the court ordered the Bureau to recalculate his conditional placement days and date. The Bureau later submitted an updated assessment stating that Cullar had earned 365 credits, had a First Step Act projected release date of November 12, 2030, and had 610 conditional placement days, resulting in a conditional placement date of March 12, 2029.

Analysis

The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and dismissing the action because Cullar lacked standing. Standing is the constitutional requirement that a person show an actual or imminent injury that is connected to the challenged conduct and likely to be corrected by a favorable court decision.

The court explained that federal law permits only earned First Step Act credits to be applied toward prerelease custody or supervised release. Credits Cullar might earn in the future depended on his future participation in qualifying programs or activities. The court also noted that he could violate prison rules and forfeit credits. Because those credits had not yet been earned, they were hypothetical and could not be applied by the Bureau at that time.

The court therefore concluded that Cullar could not show that the Bureau was improperly calculating his release date. Although his petition challenged the length of his confinement, his claimed injury was speculative because it depended on credits he had not yet earned. The court did not decide the separate legal question of whether earned credits may reduce a term of supervised release because that issue was unnecessary to the decision.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Cullar’s objection, adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion states that dismissal without prejudice allows Cullar to make necessary changes and refile the petition.