United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ANTHONY D. LESTRICK, Petitioner,
v.
ISRAEL JACQUEZ, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHELLE L. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner
Anthony Lestrick is a federal prisoner who is currently
confined at the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac,
Washington. He has presented to the Court for filing a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. (Dkt. # 4.) Petitioner asserts in his petition that he
is being unlawfully deprived of good time credits because the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has not
recalculated the application of such credits to his sentence
in accordance with the First Step Act of 2018. (See
id. at 9-13.) Petitioner asks that the Court direct the
BOP to recalculate his good time credits and to declare that
the new calculation governs his release date. (Id.
at 7, 14) If the requested relief is granted, Petitioner
contends he would be entitled to an additional 49 days of
good time credit, resulting in a projected release date of
October 24, 2019, and that he would be eligible for
prerelease to a halfway house or home confinement now.
(See Dkt. # 9 at 1.)
Respondent,
in his answer to the petition, contends that Petitioner's
petition is premature and unripe because the provision of the
First Step Act under which he seeks relief has not yet taken
effect and will not take effect until July 19, 2019. (Dkt. #
8 at 4.) Respondent notes that other district courts that
have considered petitions alleging claims similar to those
presented by Petitioner have denied relief because the
amendment has not yet taken effect. (See id. at 5.)
Respondent also contends that relief is not appropriate
because Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. (Id. at 6-9.)
Petitioner's
claim for relief arises out provisions of the First Step Act
which was signed into law on December 21, 2018. See
Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Subsection
102(b)(1) of the Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) to
change the method by which the BOP calculates good conduct
time credits. This amendment permits federal inmates to earn
up to 54 days of good conduct time for each year of the
sentence imposed, rather than the effective rate of 47 days
of credit that resulted from the manner in which the BOP
calculated good time credit under § 3624(b)(1) prior to
the amendment. Subsection 102(b)(2) of the Act delays
implementation of all amendments to § 3624 until 210
days following enactment of the Act, or until July 19, 2019.
It is this “effective date” provision which is at
the heart of this case.
The
instant petition is one of a large number of § 2241
habeas petitions filed by federal prisoners seeking release
prior to July 19, 2019.[1] In the first of that group of cases to
be considered in this Court, Johnston v. Jacquez,
C19-550 JLR-BAT, United States Magistrate Judge Brian
Tsuchida issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that
relief be denied. Dkt. # 12. In so doing, however, Judge
Tsuchida expressly rejected the Respondent's arguments
that the petition was subject to dismissal because it was
unripe and because the Petitioner failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies. With respect to the issue of
ripeness, Judge Tsuchida noted that the gravamen of the
Petitioner's petition was that the good time fix
amendment should have taken effect immediately upon enactment
of the First Step Act on December 21, 2018, and that if the
Court had accepted her argument she would have been entitled
to release prior to July 19, 2019. Judge Tsuchida explained
that forcing the Petitioner to wait until the amendment took
effect would moot her claim, and he therefore found the
petition ripe. Id. at 8-10.
With
respect to the issue of exhaustion, Judge Tsuchida concluded
that requiring the Petitioner to exhaust her administrative
remedies would be futile because the BOP has predetermined
the issue, making clear that any requests for the calculation
of good time credits under the amended statute will be denied
because the statute is not effective immediately.
Id. at 10-12.
Judge
Tsuchida then moved on to consideration of the merits of the
Petitioner's claims, concluding that the petition should
be denied because subsection 102(b)(1) of the Act, the good
time fix amendment, has not yet taken effect and, under the
specific terms of the Act, will not take effect until July
19, 2019. See id. at 15-20. Judge Tsuchida also
rejected the Petitioner's claim that the delayed
implementation of the good time fix amendment violated her
due process and equal protection rights. Id. at
12-15.
Judge
Tsuchida subsequently issued a Report and Recommendation in
another similar case, Turner v. Jacquez,
C19-545-JCC-BAT, in which he reached the same conclusions as
he did in Johnston and once again recommended denial
of the petition. Dkt. # 8. The District Judges of this Court
have not yet had an opportunity to consider the
recommendations of Judge Tsuchida in the two cases cited
above. However, this Court concurs with Judge Tsuchida's
reasoning and conclusions and sees no basis on which to
distinguish the present case from either Johnston or
Turner. This Court therefore adopts the reasoning
and conclusions of Judge Tsuchida in Johnston and
Turner and, consistent with those cases, recommends
that Petitioner's habeas petition seeking recalculation
of his good time credits under the First Step Act be denied.
A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
Objections
to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed
with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit by no
later than fourteen (14) days after the
filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections, and any
response, shall not exceed three pages. Failure to file
objections within the specified time may affect your right to
appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the
District Judge's motion calendar fourteen
(14) days after they are served and filed. Responses
to objections, if any, shall be filed no later than
fourteen (14) days after service and filing
of objections. If no timely objections are filed, the matter
will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on the
date that objections were due.
---------
Notes:
[1]
See e.g., Acedo v.
Jacquez, C19-529 RSM-MLP (alleging release date of July
6, 2019); Corbett v. Jacquez, C19-531 MJP-BAT
(alleging release date of July 7, 2019);
Gandarilla-Duarte v. Jacquez, C19-535-RSL-MAT
(alleging release date of June 16, 2019); Garcia-Orante
v. Jacquez, C19-536 RAJ-MLP (alleging release date of
June 2, 2019); Soundingsides v. Jacquez, C19-544
JCC-MLP (alleging release date of June 20, 2019); Turner
v. Jacquez, C19-545-JCC-BAT (alleging release date of
June 12, 2019); Rigney v. Jacquez, C19-548 RSL-MLP
(alleging release date of May 30, 2019); Corbitt v.
Jacquez, C19-549-TSZ-MAT (alleging release date of May
10, 2019); Johnston ...