Distefano v. Pliler
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-00773
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Distefano v. Pliler, Judge Hellerstein dismissed DiStefano’s petition as premature because his requested time credits were not yet enforceable.
Justin Robert DiStefano’s request for First Step Act time credits and prerelease-custody consideration was dismissed as premature; the court did not decide whether he was ultimately entitled to those credits.
What happened
In Distefano v. Pliler, Justin Robert DiStefano asked the court to require the Bureau of Prisons to award time credits under the First Step Act and consider him for prerelease custody. He claimed that applying 315 days of credits would make him eligible for immediate release to supervised release.
The government argued that the petition was premature because the Bureau of Prisons had until January 15, 2022, to complete the law’s two-year phase-in period. The court agreed that DiStefano had not shown an actual or imminent injury because the law did not yet require the Bureau to award or apply the credits.
Judge Hellerstein dismissed the petition because it was not ready for judicial review and closed the case. The court did not decide whether DiStefano was ultimately entitled to the credits or whether he had properly pursued administrative remedies.
The detailed version
- Distefano v. Pliler · No. 1:21-cv-00773
- Alvin Hellerstein
- July 5, 2021
Background
Justin Robert DiStefano filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking time credits under the First Step Act and consideration for prerelease custody. He alleged that he had earned 315 days of credits that the Bureau of Prisons had refused to calculate or apply. According to DiStefano, applying those credits would make him eligible for immediate release to begin supervised release.
DiStefano was serving a 120-month sentence. The opinion states that his full sentence was scheduled to end on February 14, 2025, and that, assuming he received all available good-conduct credit, he was scheduled for release from Bureau of Prisons custody on September 14, 2023.
Issue
The government argued that the petition was not ripe, meaning that the alleged injury depended on future events and was not yet ready for court review. It relied on the First Step Act’s two-year phase-in period, which ran until January 15, 2022. During that period, the Bureau of Prisons could decide whether to expand certain programs and offer incentives, including time credits.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that the Constitution limits federal courts to actual cases and controversies. A person seeking relief must show an actual or imminent injury that can be traced to the opposing party and remedied by a favorable decision. A claim is not ripe when it depends on future events that may not occur as expected.
The court held that DiStefano had not shown an actual or imminent injury. Although the Bureau of Prisons had obligations during the phase-in period concerning recidivism-reduction activities and risk assessments, the First Step Act did not require it to award incentives until the end of that period. The court therefore concluded that it had no basis to find that the Bureau’s failure to provide the requested credits violated the Act or that DiStefano then had a legally enforceable right to those credits.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition as unripe under the Constitution. Because it lacked jurisdiction on that basis, it did not reach the government’s arguments that DiStefano had failed to exhaust administrative remedies or was not entitled to the credits. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motion and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.