Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 26, 2022

Reyes v. United States

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:22-cv-06064
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Reyes v. United States, Judge Roman denied Reyes’s petition without prejudice because he had not exhausted Bureau of Prisons remedies.

Who this affects

Kennedy Reyes, whose § 2241 petition was dismissed without prejudice because he had not completed the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative review process; the BOP was given the opportunity to address the credit calculation first.

What happened

In Reyes v. United States, Kennedy Reyes challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of good-time credits under the First Step Act. He sought early termination of supervised release based on additional credits he said he had earned, and he had begun—but not completed—the prison-agency review process.

The court explained that people generally must finish the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative review process before asking a federal court to grant relief under this type of detention challenge. The court rejected Reyes’s argument that being on home confinement excused exhaustion and found no reason to make an exception.

Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the petition without prejudice so Reyes could refile after exhausting administrative remedies. The order’s conclusion also states that the petition was denied without prejudice; it further denied a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Reyes v. United States · No. 7:22-cv-06064
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Aug. 26, 2022

Background

Kennedy Reyes filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the calculation of credits by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). He asserted that the BOP failed to properly credit time he spent participating in recidivism-reduction programming during his incarceration under the First Step Act. The opinion states that Reyes was on home confinement in New Jersey and sought early termination of supervised release based on his alleged entitlement to additional good-time credits.

Reyes had pleaded guilty in the court to conspiracy to distribute narcotics and was sentenced on January 20, 2015, to 144 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He said he had begun the BOP’s administrative review process by filing a BP-9 form with a Residential Reentry Management Field Office, but he acknowledged that he had not completed that process.

Legal Standard and Analysis

A person may use a § 2241 petition to challenge detention as violating federal law. The court stated that a person seeking this relief generally must first exhaust available administrative remedies, meaning complete the agency’s review process before asking the federal court to intervene.

The court held that exhaustion was required even though Reyes was on home confinement. It rejected his reliance on two Eleventh Circuit decisions because those decisions addressed an exhaustion requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act for non-habeas civil actions, not the exhaustion requirement applicable to a § 2241 petition.

The court also found no basis to excuse the exhaustion requirement. It reasoned that the BOP was best positioned to determine whether it had made an error in calculating Reyes’s good-time credits and should have an opportunity to correct any error. The court therefore did not decide whether Reyes was actually entitled to additional credits or early termination of supervised release.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition without prejudice to refiling after Reyes exhausts his administrative remedies. In the conclusion, the court also stated that the § 2241 petition was denied without prejudice. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail Reyes a copy and note service on the docket.

The court stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.