Eviglo v. Eischen
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:22-cv-01500
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Eviglo v. Eischen, Judge Wright denied Jacques Eviglo’s time-credit petition without prejudice because his claim was not yet ready for review.
Jacques Eviglo, whose request to apply First Step Act time credits was denied without prejudice; B. Eischen, the respondent.
What happened
In Eviglo v. Eischen, Jacques Eviglo asked the court to require the Bureau of Prisons to apply time credits he earned under the First Step Act toward earlier placement or release. B. Eischen argued that the request was premature because Eviglo’s credits did not yet equal the remainder of his sentence.
The court agreed that Eviglo was not yet eligible to use the credits. It explained that documents showing credits earned, projected credits, and credits available for possible use did not mean the credits had actually been applied. The court also declined to consider Eviglo’s new request for home confinement under the CARES Act because he raised it for the first time in his objections.
Judge Wright overruled Eviglo’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied the petition without prejudice for lack of readiness for judicial review. This disposition does not bar a later petition when the claim becomes ready for review.
The detailed version
- Eviglo v. Eischen · No. 0:22-cv-01500
- Wilhelmina Wright
- May 23, 2023
Background
Jacques Eviglo filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking immediate application of earned time credits under the First Step Act of 2018. He argued that the Bureau of Prisons was violating his rights by failing to calculate and apply those credits toward prerelease custody or supervised release.
B. Eischen argued that the petition was premature. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(1)(A), a prisoner is eligible to have time credits applied when the credits equal the remainder of the prisoner’s imposed term of imprisonment. The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition without prejudice for lack of ripeness, meaning the dispute was not yet ready for judicial decision.
Court’s Analysis
Eviglo objected, arguing that Bureau of Prisons records showed that 340 days of credits had been applied toward prerelease confinement and 365 days toward early release. The court found that he had confused records showing total credits earned, early-release projections, and credits available for application with the actual application of credits.
The court reasoned that Eviglo did not yet have enough credits to use them. Even if he had earned the maximum possible amount to that point—768 days—the credits would not equal the remainder of his sentence. The court also explained that the ability to apply credits depends on the prisoner’s PATTERN score at the relevant time, making it too speculative to include those credits in the percentage of the statutory term served.
Eviglo also raised a new claim that the Bureau of Prisons violated due process by denying his request for home confinement under the CARES Act. The court treated that claim as waived because he raised it for the first time in his objections. The court determined that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary because it could resolve the petition from the existing record.
Disposition
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Eviglo’s objections, adopted the March 21, 2023 Report and Recommendation, and denied Eviglo’s habeas petition without prejudice for lack of ripeness. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.