Solberg v. Eischen
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:23-cv-03568
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Solberg v. Eischen, Judge Tostrud denied a habeas petition challenging prison time-credit calculations and dismissed the action without prejudice.
John M. Solberg and the Bureau of Prisons respondents, including B. Eischen, J. Kozulla, and S. Hachey.
What happened
John M. Solberg, representing himself, challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of time credits under the First Step Act. He had pleaded guilty to mail fraud and received a 30-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition because Solberg did not earn credits for time before arriving at FPC Duluth, the Bureau of Prisons properly awarded credits as he earned them rather than in advance, and he had no protected right to future credits. Solberg objected to that recommendation.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud reviewed the objections and recommendation from the beginning and agreed with the magistrate judge’s analysis. The court overruled the objections, accepted the recommendation in full, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Solberg v. Eischen · No. 0:23-cv-03568
- Eric Tostrud
- June 21, 2024
Background
John M. Solberg filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a lawyer. He challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of First Step Act Time Credits. The opinion states that Solberg had pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended denying Solberg’s petition for several reasons:
- Solberg was not entitled to time credits for time spent in custody before arriving at FPC Duluth because he did not participate in qualifying programming or activities during that period.
- The Bureau of Prisons correctly calculated credits as Solberg earned them, rather than awarding credits up front based on his entire imposed sentence. The court relied on the First Step Act’s language, which provides that a prisoner earns credits by successfully completing qualifying programming or productive activities.
- Solberg did not have a protected liberty interest in future time credits.
Solberg filed objections to the recommendation. Because he objected, the district court reviewed the recommendation de novo, meaning it independently reviewed the challenged issues rather than accepting the magistrate judge’s conclusions automatically.
Ruling
Judge Eric C. Tostrud concluded that Judge Schultz’s analysis and conclusions were correct. The court therefore:
- overruled Solberg’s objections; - accepted the Report and Recommendation in full; - denied Solberg’s habeas petition; and - dismissed the action without prejudice.
The opinion states that judgment was to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.