Pospech v. Segal
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:23-cv-01122
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Pospech v. Segal, Judge Schiltz denied relief, ruling First Step Act credits count qualifying days, not multiple programs completed on one day.
Brenda Joyce Pospech, whose petition was denied; the ruling also addresses how qualifying programming days are counted for First Step Act time credits.
What happened
In Pospech v. Segal, Brenda Joyce Pospech challenged how her prison time credits were calculated under the First Step Act. She argued that participating in multiple qualifying programs on the same day entitled her to credit for multiple days.
The court agreed with the magistrate judge that the law bases credits on days spent in qualifying programs, not the number of programs. Thus, participating in five programs on one day counts as one day of programming.
Judge Schiltz overruled Pospech’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied her petition challenging her imprisonment. The court also denied her request to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Pospech v. Segal · No. 0:23-cv-01122
- Patrick Schiltz
- June 29, 2023
Background
Brenda Joyce Pospech, representing herself, filed a petition challenging the calculation of her federal prison time credits. The petition concerned the First Step Act of 2018, which generally allows eligible prisoners to earn 10 days of time credits for every 30 days of successful participation in qualifying recidivism-reduction programming or productive activities. The opinion also notes a provision allowing certain prisoners to earn 15 days of credits for every 30 days of participation.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended denying the petition. The court treated Pospech’s filing labeled an “addendum” as an objection to that recommendation because it repeated her disagreement with the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A).
Issue and reasoning
Pospech argued that she should receive additional time credits when she successfully participated in multiple qualifying programs on the same day. For example, she argued that participating in three one-hour programs during one day should count as three days of programming.
The court rejected that interpretation. It held that § 3632(d)(4)(A) clearly bases time credits on the number of days spent in qualifying programming, not on the number of programs. A prisoner who participates in one program on a particular day has participated in one day of programming; a prisoner who participates in five programs on that same day has also participated in one day of programming. Because the court found the statute clear and the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation consistent with it, the court did not decide how much judicial deference the agency’s interpretation might otherwise receive.
Ruling
The court overruled Pospech’s objection and adopted Judge Micko’s Report and Recommendation. It denied Pospech’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning her petition challenging the legality or calculation of her imprisonment was unsuccessful. It also denied her application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.