Person Doe v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Background

Person Doe, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure for challenging the execution of a federal sentence. Person Doe argued that time credits earned under the First Step Act required transfer to prerelease custody. The court had allowed Person Doe to proceed under a pseudonym and sealed the docket because of Person Doe’s status as a cooperating witness.

The petition was referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott, who recommended that it be granted. Judge Cott found that Person Doe had exhausted the required administrative remedies and was eligible for prerelease custody based on accumulated time credits. The Government did not challenge those conclusions. Instead, it objected to the extent the recommendation required the Bureau of Prisons to provide Witness Protection Program services during prerelease custody.

Issues and Analysis

The court agreed with Judge Cott that the First Step Act uses mandatory language: the Bureau of Prisons “shall transfer” eligible prisoners to prerelease custody or supervised release. The court held that the Act’s eligibility requirements are comprehensive and do not allow the Bureau to impose additional requirements or refuse to transfer an eligible person. The court also noted that the Act requires the Bureau to maintain enough prerelease-custody capacity for eligible prisoners.

The Government argued that Person Doe had to choose between the First Step Act right to prerelease custody and protection under the Federal Witness Protection Program. The court rejected that argument. It held that the court had authority to decide whether continued incarceration was lawful and whether the First Step Act and the protection agreements conflicted. The court also held that the protection agreement applied while Person Doe remained in Bureau of Prisons custody, including during prerelease custody.

The court rejected the Government’s argument that the protection agreement’s failure to mention prerelease custody barred transfer. It explained that the First Step Act changed prerelease custody from a generally discretionary option to a right for prisoners who meet the statutory requirements. The court further held that Person Doe could not have waived that statutory right by signing the protection agreement before the right existed.

The court also rejected the Government’s interpretation of the agreement’s housing provisions. It found that the agreement contemplated custody in settings other than Bureau of Prisons institutions and required coordination with other agencies when necessary. Finally, the court found that the Government had not shown that it could not provide adequate protection in prerelease custody. The court directed the Government to immediately implement a prerelease arrangement that provides adequate protection and rejected the argument that Person Doe must waive protection-agreement rights to receive those services.

Disposition

The court overruled the Government’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, and granted Person Doe’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not provide several factual details, including dates and locations, because portions of the text are redacted.

Judge

Judge Analisa Torres issued the order on January 24, 2024.