Roy v. United States Bureau of Prisons, No. 2:2019cv00059 - Document 9 (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 5 PETITIONER'S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; ECF No. 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Case closed. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (SG, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Roy v. United States Bureau of Prisons Doc. 9 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 Apr 01, 2019 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 EMMANUEL ROY, NO: 2:19-CV-59-RMP Petitioner, 8 9 10 v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 11 Respondent. 12 13 BEFORE THE COURT are a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 14 § 2241, ECF No. 1, and an “emergency request” that the Court interprets as a motion 15 for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 5, both from Petitioner Emmanuel Roy, 16 who represents himself in this matter. The Court has reviewed Mr. Roy’s 17 submissions, ECF Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, as well as the response filed by the United 18 States, ECF No. 7; has researched the relevant law; and is fully informed. 19 20 21 BACKGROUND Mr. Roy was sentenced in the Southern District of New York on December 10, 2013, to 87 months on each of five counts of wire fraud or conspiracy to commit ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 wire fraud, to run concurrently, to be followed by three years of supervised release. 2 ECF No. 1 at 5−7. While in BOP custody, Mr. Roy was transferred to a reentry 3 center (“RRC”) in Spokane, Washington, overseen by BOP’s Seattle Residential 4 Reentry Management field office. See ECF Nos. 1, 2, and 7. BOP then permitted 5 Mr. Roy to transfer to home confinement to continue serving his term of 6 incarceration. Id. Since the filing of the habeas petition, Mr. Roy has been 7 transferred back to the RRC and then to the Spokane County Jail for an alleged 8 infraction at the RRC. See ECF No. 7 at 2, n. 1. Mr. Roy’s current release date 9 from BOP custody is May 29, 2019. ECF No. 1 at 10. 10 11 Mr. Roy seeks relief through a § 2241 petition from the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP’s”) administration of his sentence. 12 § 2241 petition based on good-time credits 13 Section 2241 extends habeas jurisdiction to a petitioner who is: (1) “in 14 custody”; and (2) the custody is “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties 15 of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 16 (1989). 17 Mr. Roy asserts that his good-time calculation should be changed to comply 18 with the First Step Act, Public Law 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, and that with the extra 19 good-time that he should receive, he was eligible for release from BOP custody on 20 January 10, 2019. ECF No. 1. 21 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ~ 2 1 However, the First Step Act does not yet authorize the relief that Mr. Roy 2 seeks. The good-time provisions of the First Step Act (“Act”) did not become 3 effective when the Act took effect on December 21, 2018. The Act amended 18 4 U.S.C. § 3624(b) to allow a prisoner to earn a maximum of 54 days for each year of 5 the sentence imposed. See Public Law 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, § 102. However, 6 the change will not take effect until the Attorney General completes the “risk and 7 needs assessment system” required to be completed by 210 days after the Act’s 8 enactment. Id. at §§101, 102. Therefore, the change in calculation of good-time 9 credit will not take effect until approximately July 2019. See id. 10 Federal courts are limited under Article III of the United States Constitution to 11 deciding “cases” and “controversies.” One of the rules that ensures that a district 12 court adheres to this requirement is that a claim must be “ripe,” meaning in this 13 context that an administrative decision must be formalized and its effects must be 14 felt in a concrete way by the challenging party. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 15 387 U.S. 136, 148−49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 16 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977). “A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 17 contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur 18 at all.” Texas v. United States, 423 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (internal citations omitted). 19 Because the BOP has no authority to recalculate Mr. Roy’s good-time credit 20 according to the First Step Act until the relevant provisions take effect in 21 approximately July 2019, the question of whether the BOP erred in administering ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ~ 3 1 Mr. Roy’s sentence on that basis is premature. Accord Nichols v. Burch, 2019 U.S. 2 Dist. LEXIS 41595, at *4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 12, 2019) (dismissing section 2241 petition 3 for recalculation of good-time credit as premature because BOP cannot apply good- 4 time calculations of the First Step Act until approximately July 2019); Shorter v. 5 Dobbs, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13235 at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2019) (finding 6 premature a prisoner’s claim of deprivation of good-time credits under the First Step 7 Act). 8 There is a further question of whether this Court had jurisdiction over Mr. 9 Roy’s § 2241 petition at the time that it was filed. To invoke a court’s jurisdiction in 10 a § 2241 case, the petitioner must name the proper respondent, and the district court 11 must have jurisdiction over that respondent. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 12 (2004). In a “core” habeas case, meaning one challenging “present physical 13 confinement,” the proper respondent is the “immediate custodian,” the individual 14 with the ability to produce the petitioner pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 15 437−39, 443. As a general rule, jurisdiction “lies in only one district: the district of 16 confinement.” Id. at 443. 17 Although Mr. Roy was in BOP custody at the Spokane County Jail as of 18 March 19, 2019, see ECF No. 7 at 2, n. 1, he was in BOP custody through the Seattle 19 Residential Reentry Management field office up until March 8, 2019, while he was 20 serving his term either in home confinement or at the reentry center (“RRC”) in 21 Spokane. The Court does not find it to be clear in the record before it whether Mr. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ~ 4 1 Roy is confined pursuant to authority in the Eastern or Western District of 2 Washington while he has been in BOP custody through the Seattle Residential 3 Reentry Management field office. 4 Preliminary Injunctive Relief 5 In addition, on March 7, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for a temporary or 6 preliminary injunction “directing the BOP to keep the status quo with regards to 7 [his] home confinement.” ECF No. 5. Petitioner asserted in his motion that he had 8 been returned to RRC and greatly restricted in his allowable activities in “unfair, 9 illegal, and discriminatory . . . retaliation for filing a 2241 Petition.” Id. By the time 10 that the United States responded on March 19, 2019, Mr. Roy was in the Spokane 11 County Jail pending resolution of an alleged violation of the RRC rules. See ECF 12 No. 7 at 2, n. 1. 13 The standard for issuing either a preliminary injunction or a temporary 14 restraining order requires that the moving party establish: “[1] that he is likely to 15 succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 16 of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an 17 injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 18 Preliminary injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy” that may be awarded only 19 upon a “clear showing” that the movant is entitled to such relief. Id. at 22. 20 / / / 21 / / / ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ~ 5 1 Here, as discussed above, Petitioner has not established the first requisite, that 2 he is likely to succeed on the merits. Petitioner seeks a recalculation of his good- 3 time credit and release date based upon a provision that is not yet in effect. In 4 addition, Petitioner seeks injunctive relief that is different in nature from the section 5 2241 action seeking to invoke a sentence-shortening procedure. A prisoner who 6 seeks to challenge the constitutionality of decisions such as suspension of privileges 7 must proceed through a civil rights claim under Section 1983 or Bivens v. Six 8 Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See 9 Perez v. Matavousian, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11750 at *2−3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 10 2018) (citing Boyce v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 911, 914 (10th Cir. 2001), vacated on 11 other grounds by Boyce v. Ashcroft, 268 F.3d 953 (10th Cir. 2001)). 12 13 Finally, and dispositively, Petitioner’s motion is moot because the Court lacks jurisdiction until Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief is ripe, as discussed above. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Petitioner’s 18 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED 16 17 18 without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, as unripe. 2. Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 5, is DENIED AS MOOT. 19 3. At this time, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of 20 a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and, therefore, the Court 21 declines to issue a certificate of appealability. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ~ 6 1 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to Petitioner and counsel and close this case. DATED April 1, 2019. 4 5 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ~ 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
