Montoya v. Eischen

Background

Fernando Montoya filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his First Step Act time credits. He asked the court to decide when he should have started earning credits and then, if credits remained, to allow briefing on whether they could shorten his supervised release. The court appointed counsel for Montoya.

Montoya was arrested in Illinois on August 17, 2018, and later received concurrent state and federal prison sentences. He was sentenced federally to 120 months on December 6, 2019. He remained in state facilities until completing his state sentence on September 1, 2022, later arriving at his first designated federal institution, USP Atwater, on January 17, 2023. The Bureau began awarding him credits there, initially at 10 days for every 30 days of qualifying programming and later at 15 days for every 30 days. The Bureau stopped him from earning credits while he was being transferred from USP Atwater to FPC Duluth between March 26 and May 12, 2024.

As of October 27, 2025, the Bureau calculated that Montoya had earned 365 days of credits toward early release and 85 days toward placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement. Montoya argued that he was denied credits for 1,137 days of imprisonment. He relied in part on work and certificates he obtained before arriving at USP Atwater and asserted that he worked as an orderly during the transfer period.

Legal framework

The First Step Act allows eligible prisoners to earn time credits for successful participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities. The statute provides that a sentence begins when a person is received into custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily at, the official detention facility where the sentence will be served. Bureau of Prisons regulations instead state that an eligible prisoner begins earning credits when the prisoner arrives or voluntarily surrenders at the designated Bureau facility.

The court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which requires courts to independently interpret statutes rather than defer to an agency merely because the statute is ambiguous. The court also considered the statutory requirement that the Bureau provide prisoners opportunities to participate in qualifying programs and activities throughout their incarceration.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the regulation delaying eligibility until arrival at the designated Bureau facility was invalid because it conflicted with the statute’s definition of when a sentence begins. Prisoners may therefore be eligible to earn First Step Act credits beginning when they are received into custody awaiting transportation to the official detention facility, or when they voluntarily arrive there to begin serving the sentence. The Bureau may not use arrival at the designated facility as a blanket rule for determining when eligibility begins.

The court did not award Montoya credits for his earlier activities. It concluded that credits can be earned only through programs or productive activities assigned by the Bureau based on the prisoner’s individualized risk-and-needs assessment. Because Montoya’s activities before arriving at USP Atwater occurred before that assessment and were not shown to have been assigned through that system, the court concluded that those activities could not support an award of credits. The court also noted that the parties disputed whether Illinois had relinquished primary custody of Montoya, but did not resolve that issue because it found the pre-assessment activities could not be credited.

The court separately rejected Montoya’s claim for credits during the transfer period. Even assuming he worked as an orderly, the record did not show that the work was a Bureau-assigned First Step Act program or productive activity based on his individualized assessment. The court therefore concluded that he did not earn credits during that period.

Recommendation and current status

The report and recommendation states that Montoya has not been denied any First Step Act credits to which he was entitled. It recommends that the respondent file, within 15 days, an updated calculation of Montoya’s earned credits. It further recommends that the parties state whether additional briefing is needed regarding applying any uncontested credits to supervised release. If additional briefing is unnecessary, it recommends that Montoya’s petition be denied.

Because this document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, it is not a final order or judgment and is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The notice states that a party may file written objections under the District of Minnesota’s local rules.