Marcks v. Segal
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:23-cv-01240
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Marcks v. Segal: Judge Wright denied Marcks’s challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of First Step Act time credits.
Dawn Marie Marcks, whose challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of her First Step Act time credits was denied.
What happened
In Marcks v. Segal, Dawn Marie Marcks challenged how the Bureau of Prisons calculated time credits under the First Step Act. She argued that prisoners should receive credits for each eligible program completed, rather than for the days spent in eligible programming.
The court agreed with the Bureau’s interpretation that credits are based on days of participation during a 30-day period, not the number of programs attended. The court also declined to consider new arguments raised in Marcks’s objections because she had not included them in her original petition.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Marcks’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied her petition challenging the calculation of her sentence credits.
The detailed version
- Marcks v. Segal · No. 0:23-cv-01240
- Wilhelmina Wright
- June 27, 2023
Background
Dawn Marie Marcks filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure used to challenge unlawful custody or the execution of a sentence. She argued that the First Step Act of 2018 entitled her to more time credits than the Bureau of Prisons had awarded her.
The First Step Act provides incentives for prisoners who successfully participate in qualifying evidence-based recidivism-reduction programs or productive activities. Under the provision discussed by the court, a prisoner earns 10 days of credit for every 30 days of successful participation, with an additional 5 days for certain prisoners assessed as having a minimum or low risk of recidivating.
Marcks interpreted the statute to mean that a prisoner enrolled in several qualifying programs at the same time could earn credits separately for each program. The Bureau of Prisons, relying on its regulation, interpreted the statute to award credits based on the number of days spent in eligible programming during a 30-day period, rather than the number of programs attended.
Analysis
Marcks objected to a magistrate judge’s May 9, 2023 Report and Recommendation, which recommended denying her petition. The district court determined that her objections simply repeated arguments made in the petition and therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
The court concluded that the Bureau of Prisons had correctly calculated the credits. It noted that every court addressing the argument had agreed that First Step Act credits are based on days spent in eligible programming during a 30-day period, not on the number of eligible programs attended during that period. The court also held that new claims and arguments raised in the objections—including several conditions-of-confinement claims—had been waived because Marcks had not raised them in her petition. The court stated that those claims were not properly included in a habeas petition.
Disposition
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Marcks’s objections, adopted the May 9, 2023 Report and Recommendation, and denied Marcks’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.