Wessels v. Houden

Background

Michael Alan Wessels is serving a 276-month sentence after pleading guilty to four offenses. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking transfer to pre-release custody based on time credits under the First Step Act of 2018. He contended that he had earned 735 credits, that some should advance the start of supervised release, and that the Bureau of Prisons should also consider projected future credits when determining his transfer date. He argued that these calculations made him eligible for immediate pre-release custody.

United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that the petition be dismissed because the court lacked authority to consider the claim through habeas review and because the claim was not legally viable. Wessels objected. He argued that a transfer to pre-release custody would be a significant change in the level of custody and therefore concerned the fact or duration of his confinement. He also argued that the First Step Act entitled him to a transfer based on earned and projected credits.

Analysis

The district court reviewed Wessels’s objections for clear error because the objections repeated arguments that had already been presented to and considered by the magistrate judge. The court explained that a habeas petition is used to challenge the fact or duration of physical confinement, such as the validity of a conviction or the length of imprisonment.

The court held that pre-release custody is not release from custody. Instead, it is another form of Bureau of Prisons custody and represents a change in the designation or place of imprisonment. Because Wessels sought a transfer to pre-release custody rather than an earlier release from imprisonment, his claim did not challenge the fact or duration of confinement. The court therefore agreed that it lacked habeas jurisdiction over the request.

The court also considered Wessels’s argument about projected time credits. Wessels did not dispute that he lacked enough earned credits, as of the petition’s filing date, to qualify for transfer. He argued that the Bureau of Prisons should count credits he was expected to earn. The court concluded that the statute governing the use of time credits toward pre-release custody was silent about credits earned while a person is already in pre-release custody. It held that Wessels had not presented a viable claim for relief and declined to invite him to convert the petition into a civil action.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright found no clear error, overruled Wessels’s objections, and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed Wessels’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. It denied his motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.