Rand v. Fikes
- John Tunheim
- 0:21-cv-01276
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Rand v. Fikes, Judge Tunheim denied Rand’s premature petition because the Bureau of Prisons could delay earned credits until January 15, 2022.
Marcus Sharod Rand and the Bureau of Prisons, whose timing of earned time credit awards was at issue.
What happened
In Rand v. Fikes, Marcus Sharod Rand argued that his participation in prison programs and work entitled him to earned time credits under the First Step Act, which could shorten his sentence.
The court held that the Bureau of Prisons had discretion during the law’s phase-in period to delay awarding those credits until January 15, 2022. Because that date had not arrived when Rand filed his petition, the court found his claim premature and did not decide his other arguments about how the credits should be calculated.
Chief Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Rand’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied Rand’s petition.
The detailed version
- Rand v. Fikes · No. 0:21-cv-01276
- John Tunheim
- Nov. 29, 2021
Background
Marcus Sharod Rand, who represented himself, was incarcerated at FCI Sandstone. He had been convicted in the Western District of Michigan of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute and was serving a 151-month sentence. His projected release date was July 26, 2022.
Rand filed a petition asking the court to review his custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that he had earned a 180-day sentence reduction through prison programming and work at a prison job under the First Step Act. The Bureau of Prisons had not awarded him any earned time credits, stating that it would not award them before January 15, 2022.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition because Rand’s claim was not ripe, meaning the dispute was not yet ready for judicial decision. Rand objected and argued that the court should consider whether the Bureau of Prisons had improperly interpreted the First Step Act.
Court’s analysis
The First Step Act provides earned time credits for eligible prisoners who successfully complete evidence-based programs or productive activities. The law also created a phase-in period for the Bureau of Prisons to implement the required programs and activities. During that period, § 3621(h)(4) states that the Bureau of Prisons “may” expand programs and offer the related incentives and rewards.
The court concluded that “may” gave the Bureau of Prisons discretion to award or delay earned time credits during the phase-in period. The court noted that Congress used “shall” elsewhere in the same statutory provision when requiring action. It therefore held that the Bureau of Prisons could wait until the statutory deadline of January 15, 2022, even though the court viewed the delay as contrary to the First Step Act’s purpose and found the Bureau’s lack of explanation perplexing.
The court rejected interpretations that would either require the Bureau of Prisons to award credits before January 15, 2022, or allow it to refuse indefinitely to honor credits for qualifying programs. The court concluded that the statute’s preliminary implementation provision applied only during the phase-in period.
Because the Bureau of Prisons had discretion to delay awarding the credits until January 15, 2022, the court found Rand’s claims premature. It therefore did not resolve Rand’s additional arguments about whether prison work qualified for credits, whether only Bureau-assigned programming counted, or whether the Bureau’s method for converting work hours was reasonable.
Disposition
Chief Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Rand’s objection to the report and recommendation, adopted the magistrate judge’s September 13, 2021 report and recommendation, and denied Rand’s petition. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.