Bowden v. Marques
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:19-cv-01510
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Kenneth D. Bowden v. R. Marques, Judge Wright denied Bowden’s habeas petition and dismissed the case without prejudice because he had not exhausted administrative remedies.
Kenneth D. Bowden’s petition was denied, and his case was dismissed without prejudice because the record did not establish exhaustion of administrative remedies.
What happened
Kenneth D. Bowden challenged how the Federal Bureau of Prisons calculated good-conduct credit for his prison sentence. He argued that the First Step Act required the Bureau to calculate that credit using the sentence imposed by the judge.
The court explained that the relevant amendment was not yet effective when Bowden filed his petition, making the petition premature at that time. Although the effective date later passed, the record did not show that Bowden had first presented his claim through the Bureau’s administrative process.
In Bowden v. Marques, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as modified, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Bowden v. Marques · No. 0:19-cv-01510
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Aug. 15, 2019
Background
Kenneth D. Bowden, who was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in June 2019. Habeas corpus is a procedure used to challenge the legality or execution of a person’s custody. Bowden challenged the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ method for calculating good-conduct time credited toward his prison sentence.
Bowden argued that the First Step Act of 2018 required good-conduct time to be calculated using the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. Before the Act, the Bureau of Prisons interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) to allow calculation based on the time a prisoner actually served. The Act amended that provision to require calculation based on the sentence imposed by the court.
Report and Recommendation
A magistrate judge recommended denying Bowden’s petition as premature. The Act provided that the amendment would not take effect until the Attorney General completed and released a risk-and-needs assessment system, and the Act allowed 210 days for that process. That period had not expired when Bowden filed his petition, so the Bureau of Prisons lacked statutory authority to recalculate his good-conduct credit at that time.
Bowden did not timely object to the report and recommendation. As a result, the court reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed that the report and recommendation correctly addressed the law when Bowden filed his petition. The court also recognized that the date on which the amendment was due to take effect had passed by the time of its decision. Because that change in circumstances made the original prematurity reasoning insufficient by itself, the court modified the recommendation.
The court instead concluded that denial was warranted because the record did not establish that Bowden had exhausted available administrative remedies. Under the cited precedent, a prisoner challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ execution of a sentence through a habeas action must first present the claim to the Bureau of Prisons.
Disposition
The court adopted the July 19, 2019 report and recommendation as modified, denied Bowden’s habeas petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.