Kishan Vinayak Patel v. Warden J. Greene

Patel · United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · April 2, 2026 · No. 3:25-cv-2483

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Kishan Vinayak Patel’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Patel argued that he should receive First Step Act time credits beginning when he was sentenced rather than when he arrived at his designated Bureau of Prisons facility. The court held that Patel had not shown successful participation in qualifying programming before arriving at that facility and therefore was not entitled to additional credits.

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Robert D. Mariani
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Decision date
April 2, 2026
Docket number
3:25-cv-2483
Procedural posture
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of First Step Act time credits.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the § 2241 habeas petition based on the evidentiary record and determined whether Patel was entitled to relief under the First Step Act and related regulations.
Precedential value
unpublished, nonprecedential district court memorandum; metadata lists precedential status as unknown
Parties
Kishan Vinayak Patel v. Warden J. Greene
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

federal habeas corpuspost-conviction reliefstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

federal habeas corpuspost-conviction reliefstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Patel was entitled to First Step Act time credits for the period between his sentencing and his arrival at his designated Bureau of Prisons facility.
  2. Whether the court needed to resolve the alleged conflict between 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a) and 28 C.F.R. § 523.42(a) concerning when a term of imprisonment commences.

Holdings

  1. Patel was not entitled to the requested credits because he presented no evidence that he successfully participated in qualifying evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities during that period.
  2. The court did not need to resolve whether the regulation conflicts with the statute because Patel had not shown that he participated in qualifying programming during the disputed period.

Key quotations

Here, whether the regulation conflicts with the statute is not dispositive.
The FSA plainly states that prisoners may earn credits for “successful participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities.”

Factual background

Patel was sentenced in the Northern District of Ohio on September 11, 2025, to 46 months' imprisonment for money-laundering offenses. He remained in a non-Bureau of Prisons facility from sentencing through October 23, 2025, entered a Bureau facility as a holdover inmate on November 5, and arrived at his designated facility, LSCI-Allenwood, on November 10, 2025. The Bureau's records showed that he began earning First Step Act credits upon arrival at LSCI-Allenwood, and that he had not been on a waitlist for First Step Act programming before December 2025. Patel presented no evidence that he participated in qualifying programming or productive activities between sentencing and arrival at LSCI-Allenwood.

Procedural history

Patel filed a § 2241 habeas petition alleging that the Bureau of Prisons improperly refused to award First Step Act time credits for the period between his sentencing and his arrival at his designated Bureau of Prisons facility. The court considered the petition and the respondent's supporting documentation, concluded that the petition was ripe for disposition, and denied habeas relief.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…