Jordan v. Segal

Background

Kelly A. Jordan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of time credits earned through participation in programming at the institution. Jordan argued that the credits should be calculated based on each class in which she participated. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, whose May 9, 2023, Report and Recommendation recommended denying the petition and dismissing the case. Jordan timely objected.

Court’s Analysis

The district court conducted the required de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Jordan specifically objected. It concluded that the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation was shared by every court that had considered the issue: prisoners are entitled to 10 or 15 days of credit for each month of programming in which they participate, not 10 or 15 days for each individual class.

The court also held that, even if it disagreed with the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation, that interpretation was reasonable. The court therefore stated that established precedent required deference to the agency’s interpretation. Jordan argued that the Supreme Court might reconsider that precedent, but the district court said it was bound by existing Supreme Court decisions rather than speculation about future changes.

Jordan’s objections also discussed staffing problems that apparently resulted in fewer classes being offered. The court noted that Jordan did not state that she had been unable to take classes she wanted or identify the personal harm she suffered from the understaffing. In any event, the court did not consider that issue because Jordan had not raised it in the original petition.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied Jordan’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the matter. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.