Simon v. Segal

Background

Markita D. Simon filed a petition for review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. She was proceeding without a lawyer and was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota. The petition challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ treatment of time credits that Simon earned through evidence-based recidivism-reduction programming. Simon alleged that the Bureau had failed to apply those credits and that Michael Segal, identified as the warden, lacked authority to decline to apply them.

Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a report and recommendation on September 20, 2023, recommending that the petition be denied. Simon did not object, even though the deadline for objections had passed. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed that Simon might be eligible to earn time credits, but explained that earned credits could not be applied until the statutory requirements were met. Those requirements include showing through periodic risk assessments a reduction in recidivism risk or maintaining a minimum or low recidivism-risk level during the prison term. The court found that Simon’s current risk level was high, so she was not eligible to have the credits applied until, among other requirements, her risk level was reduced to minimum or low.

The court recognized that Simon had earned 1,149 program days by participating in recidivism-reduction programming. It nevertheless rejected her argument that the Bureau of Prisons lacked authority to refuse to apply the credits. Relying on 18 U.S.C. §§ 3624(g) and 3632(d)(4)(C), the court concluded that the statute gives the Bureau authority not to apply credits when the statutory risk-related requirements have not been met.

Simon also argued that the statutory requirements should not apply because she should not have been classified as a high recidivism risk. The court found this claim underpleaded, meaning that the petition did not provide the facts required to support that ground for relief. The court also stated that Simon had not exhausted the administrative remedies for challenging her risk classification. Because of that failure, review of the classification claim was precluded.

Disposition

The court held that Magistrate Judge Docherty committed no error, clear or otherwise. It adopted the September 20, 2023 report and recommendation and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. The adopted recommendation was that Simon’s petition be denied.