Baisden v. Marques
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:19-cv-00400
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Baisden v. Marques, Judge Wright denied Baisden’s habeas petition and dismissed the case without prejudice because he had not exhausted administrative remedies.
Karlis Ray Baisden’s challenge to the calculation of his good-conduct credit was denied, and his case was dismissed without prejudice; the order also denied his motions to expedite proceedings and amend his objection.
What happened
In Baisden v. Marques, Karlis Ray Baisden challenged how the Federal Bureau of Prisons calculated good-conduct credit under the First Step Act. He argued that the agency should have recalculated his credit immediately.
The court explained that the law was not yet in effect when Baisden filed his petition and that the record did not show he had first used the Bureau of Prisons’ available administrative process. The court therefore denied his petition and dismissed the case without prejudice. It also denied his requests to speed up the case and to amend his objection.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Baisden’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation as modified, denied the petition and both motions, and ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Baisden v. Marques · No. 0:19-cv-00400
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Aug. 15, 2019
Background
Karlis Ray Baisden filed a petition asking the court to review how the Federal Bureau of Prisons calculates good-conduct credit toward a prison sentence. He argued that the First Step Act of 2018 required the Bureau to calculate that credit using the sentence imposed by the judge, rather than the time the prisoner actually serves.
Before the First Step Act, the Bureau interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) as allowing good-conduct credit to be calculated based on time actually served. The Act amended that statute, but the amendments were not scheduled to take effect until the Attorney General completed and released a risk-and-needs assessment system. The 210-day period for doing so ended on July 19, 2019.
Report and Recommendation and Objections
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended denying the petition as premature because the statutory amendments were not yet in effect when Baisden filed his petition and when the recommendation was issued. Baisden objected. He later moved to amend his objection, asserting that the Bureau had begun recalculating good-conduct credit for other inmates. The court denied that motion and did not consider the amended objections. The court stated that even considering the asserted new evidence would not change its analysis.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed that the magistrate judge correctly determined that the Bureau lacked statutory authority to recalculate Baisden’s credit when the petition and recommendation were filed. The court also recognized that the relevant date had passed by the time of its decision. Despite that change in circumstances, the court concluded that the record did not establish that Baisden had exhausted available administrative remedies. Exhaustion means presenting the claim through the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative process before bringing the habeas case. The court therefore denied the petition on that basis rather than deciding whether Baisden’s calculation of good-conduct credit was legally correct.
The court also denied Baisden’s emergency motion to expedite proceedings. It explained that, even if the requested habeas relief had been granted, Baisden would not have been released for several more months.
Disposition
The court overruled Baisden’s objection and adopted the June 6, 2019 Report and Recommendation as modified. It denied Baisden’s habeas petition, denied his emergency motion to expedite proceedings, denied his motion to amend his objection, and dismissed the case without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.