Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00576/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00576-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA LOCKETT,

Petitioner,

v.

Warden SCHELIA CLARK,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-576 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

Patricia Lockett, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution

in Dublin, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241, in which she alleged that the Bureau of Prisons has miscalculated the good time credits to

which she is entitled under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) and that the miscalculation will result in a longer

term of imprisonment than that to which she is entitled if she continues to earn good time credits

for the rest of her sentence. The court issued an order to show cause why the writ should not be

granted. Respondent then filed a response and motion to dismiss the petition in which she

contended that the BOP's interpretation of § 3524(b) is correct and governs the calculation of

Lockett's time credits. 

A federal prisoner serving a term of more than a year but less than life "may receive credit

toward the service of the prisoner's sentence, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end

of each year of the prisoner's term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the

term" for good behavior. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) (emphasis added). The BOP's implementing

regulation provides that an "inmate earns 54 days credit toward service of sentence (good-time
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

credit) for each year served. This amount is prorated when the time served by the inmate for the

sentence during the year is less than a full year." 28 C.F.R. § 523.20; accord BOP Program

Statement 5880.28 § 1-41.

Lockett contends that § 3624(b)'s phrase "term of imprisonment" means the "sentence

actually imposed" while the BOP has interpreted the phrase to mean "time actually served." The

sole issue here is whether the BOP's interpretation must be followed, because Lockett contends

only that BOP's interpretation is wrong and does not contend that the BOP's calculation under the

BOP's interpretation is wrong

After Lockett's petition was filed, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision which addressed the

exact question posed by Lockett's petition and decided it squarely against Lockett's position. In

Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2005), the issue was whether the BOP correctly

interpreted § 3624(b). The Mujahid court determined that its earlier decision in PachecoCamacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001), was controlling. "Pacheco-Camacho established

that the phrase 'term of imprisonment' in 18 U.S.C. § 3524(b)(1) is ambiguous, that the BOP's

interpretation was reasonable and is thus entitled to deference." Mujahid. 413 F.3d at 999. As a

result, Mujahid was entitled to earn credits based on time actually served rather than on the

sentence imposed. See id.

Applying Mujahid and Pacheco-Comacho here compels the rejection of Lockett's petition.

Lockett is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because the BOP's interpretation of § 3624(b)

to allow time credits to be earned only on time actually served and its calculation of Lockett's

good time credits under that interpretation is not in "violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

The petition is DENIED on the merits. Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied because

denial rather than dismissal is the appropriate resolution of the petition. (Docket # 6.) The clerk

shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September _20__, 2005 _____________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge