Vela v. Segal
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-01364
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Vela v. Segal, Judge Schiltz denied Vela’s habeas petition, ruling that First Step Act credits count programming days, not multiple programs in one day.
Vanessa A. Vela, whose petition was denied; the ruling also addresses how qualifying programming days are counted for prisoners seeking First Step Act time credits.
What happened
In Vela v. Segal, Vanessa A. Vela challenged the recommendation to deny her petition. She argued that completing several qualifying programs on the same day entitled her to credit for several days.
The court rejected that interpretation of the First Step Act. It held that credits are based on the number of days spent in qualifying programming, so one or five programs completed on the same day count as one day.
Judge Schiltz overruled Vela’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied her habeas petition.
The detailed version
- Vela v. Segal · No. 0:23-cv-01364
- Patrick Schiltz
- June 29, 2023
Background
Vanessa A. Vela, representing herself, objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that her petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Her petition challenged how qualifying programs were counted under the First Step Act of 2018.
Issue
The dispute concerned whether a prisoner who completes multiple qualifying programs on the same day earns time credit for multiple days of participation. Vela argued that participating in three one-hour programs during one day should count as three days of programming.
Court’s reasoning
The court conducted a fresh review of Vela’s objection. It agreed with the magistrate judge that the statute bases time credits on the number of days spent in qualifying programming, not the number of programs completed. Thus, participating in one program or five programs on the same day counts as one day of programming. Because the court found the statute clear, it did not decide how much judicial deference the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation would receive under the cited precedent.
Ruling
Judge Patrick J. Schiltz overruled Vela’s objection and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied Vela’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.