Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0242-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Terrence M. BROWN, and on behalf of All Federal Inmates Similarly Situated, Petitioner-Appellant v. Cheron NASH, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute Bastrop; Jefferson B. Sessions, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
    No. 16-50129 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 3, 2017
    Terrence M. Brown, Pro Se
    Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se on appeal, Terrence M. Brown, federal prisoner #08524-031, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition on behalf of himself and similarly-situated federal prisoners challenging the method adopted by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for calculating good-time credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Brown does not claim he is eligible for immediate release.

Where the prisoner does not make that claim, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal of § 2241 petitions challenging the BOP’s calculation of good-time credit under § 3624(b). Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 311-12 (5th Cir. 2005). In Sample, our court ruled the petition was not ripe because the prisoner had not established he would sustain immediate injury that could be redressed by the relief requested. Id. at 312.

Brown requests the same relief as the petitioner in Sample. Whether Brown’s projected release date is computed by the BOP’s interpretation or his own, he is not yet entitled to release. Thus, like the petitioner in Sample, Brown’s petition is not ripe for review and the instant appeal is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See id.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.