Gill v. United States of America
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-02764
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Jagrant Gill v. United States, Magistrate Judge Micko recommended denying habeas relief and dismissing the matter because removal-order prisoners cannot use First Step Act credits.
Jagrant Gill, and prisoners subject to final orders of removal who seek to earn or apply First Step Act time credits.
What happened
In Jagrant Gill v. United States of America, Jagrant Gill argued that the Federal Bureau of Prisons wrongly prevented him from applying time credits earned under the First Step Act.
The government provided Gill’s final order of removal. The recommendation explains that people subject to such an order cannot earn or apply these credits. It also rejected Gill’s argument that this rule violates equal protection because the rule has a rational basis.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended denying Gill’s habeas petition and dismissing the matter. The recommendation is not a final order or judgment, and it says the parties may file written objections within 14 days after being served.
The detailed version
- Gill v. United States of America · No. 0:26-cv-02764
- Michael Davis
- July 8, 2026
Background
Jagrant Gill filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ alleged refusal to let him apply time credits earned under the First Step Act of 2018. The petition suggested that Gill might be subject to a final order of removal.
The court directed the United States to establish whether Gill was subject to such an order or to explain why habeas relief should not be granted. The United States responded with a copy of Gill’s final order of removal. Gill was given an opportunity to reply, but the deadline passed without a reply or information indicating that he was not subject to the order.
Analysis
The recommendation relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E), which makes a prisoner subject to a final order of removal ineligible to earn and apply First Step Act time credits. Based on the government’s submission, the recommendation concludes that Gill cannot apply those credits.
Gill also argued that denying these credits to people subject to final orders of removal violates equal protection. The recommendation rejects that argument under rational-basis review, a legal standard asking whether the challenged classification has a rational connection to a legitimate government purpose. It explains that restricting time credits can reduce the risk that people with removal orders will flee and can help ensure that people who commit felonies in the United States serve their full prison sentences.
Recommended disposition
Douglas L. Micko recommended that Gill’s habeas petition be denied and that the matter be dismissed. The document is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court, and it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The notice states that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.
Outcome
The recommendation contains two separate proposed actions: denial of the habeas petition and dismissal of the matter. It does not state that the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.