Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee dismisses Robert L. Toney’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ application of First Step Act earned time credits. Although the court finds a genuine issue regarding whether administrative remedies were unavailable, it concludes that the Bureau of Prisons, rather than the court, has authority to determine prerelease custody placement and that the petition therefore fails to state a cognizable habeas claim. The court dismisses the petition with prejudice, certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Toney exhausted available BOP administrative remedies or whether the administrative process was unavailable to him.
- Whether the BOP's authority to determine a prisoner's place of confinement precluded the court from ordering transfer to prerelease custody, a residential reentry center, or home confinement.
- Whether an alleged violation of BOP Program Statement 5410.01 or related internal guidance stated a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- Whether an appeal would be taken in good faith and whether Toney should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Holdings
- The court denied dismissal based on failure to exhaust because the record presented a genuine issue as to whether the BOP administrative-remedy process was unavailable to Toney due to delay in providing the required appeal form and failure by BOP officials to consider whether his late appeal had a valid justification.
- The court held that Toney could not obtain an order requiring placement in prerelease custody, a residential reentry center, or home confinement because the BOP, not the court, has statutory authority and discretion to determine the place of a federal prisoner's imprisonment and prerelease placement.
- An alleged misapplication of BOP Program Statement 5410.01 or related internal guidance does not state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because such program statements are internal agency guidelines rather than laws or properly promulgated regulations.
- The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Toney leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Key quotations
“The Court therefore denies Respondent’s motion to dismiss for Petitioner’s alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.”
“Put simply, Petitioner has failed to state a habeas claim this Court can recognize.”
“The Court therefore GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.”
“The Court therefore CERTIFIES under Rule 24(a) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and DENIES Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis.”
Factual background
In 2020, Toney pleaded guilty in the Western District of Missouri to two methamphetamine offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and one interstate-travel offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). He received a 151-month sentence followed by five years of supervised release and was incarcerated at FCI Memphis. Toney alleged that he had accrued approximately 400 days of First Step Act earned time credits but that the BOP refused to apply them because of a Missouri detainer and because of the nature of his convictions. He sought an order requiring the BOP to apply the credits toward prerelease custody or supervised release.
Procedural history
Toney pleaded guilty and was sentenced in the Western District of Missouri to 151 months' imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He did not appeal, but later sought compassionate release and a sentence reduction under Amendment 821, both of which were denied. He then filed this § 2241 petition in the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that the BOP improperly refused to apply approximately 400 days of First Step Act earned time credits because of a detainer. The court rejected the exhaustion defense after finding a genuine issue concerning administrative-remedy availability, but dismissed the petition on the merits because placement in prerelease custody is committed to the BOP's discretion and alleged violations of internal BOP program statements are not cognizable under § 2241.