Laksonen v. Eischen

Background

Richard Laksonen filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a prisoner to challenge the execution of a sentence. He alleged that the Bureau of Prisons improperly calculated his First Step Act time credits. The First Step Act provides credits for successful participation in evidence-based recidivism-reduction programming and productive activities.

Laksonen argued that he should have earned 15 days of credits for every 30 days of qualifying programming beginning April 6, 2022, when he arrived at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth. The Bureau of Prisons instead awarded him 10 days for each of six 30-day periods from April 6 through October 3, 2022, and then awarded 15 days for each of four additional 30-day periods beginning October 3.

Laksonen had received a low-risk assessment on April 27, 2022, and another low-risk assessment on October 7, 2022. His projected release date, according to the Bureau of Prisons’ calculations, was May 20, 2023.

Magistrate judge’s recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge John Docherty recommended denying the petition. He interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(ii) to mean that a prisoner must maintain a minimum- or low-risk assessment over two consecutive assessments before qualifying for the additional five days of credits. The recommendation concluded that Laksonen became eligible for 15 days per 30-day period beginning October 3, 2022.

The recommendation also concluded that the statute did not authorize pro rata or partial credits for less than a completed 30-day period. It relied on the statute and a Bureau of Prisons program statement providing that credits are calculated in completed 30-day increments and that partial credit is not awarded.

Objections

Laksonen objected that the recommendation did not properly address a prior related District of Minnesota proceeding and cited decisions from other federal district courts. The court explained that out-of-circuit decisions are not binding and concluded that the cited decisions did not resolve the statutory interpretation issue presented here.

Laksonen also argued that the statute’s use of the word “shall” required the additional five days to be counted from his initial low-risk assessment. The court rejected that interpretation. It held that the statutory requirement that a prisoner maintain the risk classification “over 2 consecutive assessments” meant that the second qualifying assessment was the trigger for the additional credits.

Finally, Laksonen argued that delays in the Bureau of Prisons’ automated calculation system could prevent him from receiving the benefit of credits earned near his release date. The court stated that the Bureau of Prisons should address that potential problem, but found that the record did not establish a violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Ruling

The court overruled Laksonen’s objections and accepted the recommendation. It denied the petition, denied the motion for consideration, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court therefore upheld the challenged calculation of First Step Act credits and entered judgment accordingly.