Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00667/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00667-0/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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

COURTNEY MACKINTRUSH PETITIONER

Reg. #25467-009

V. NO. 4:15CV00667-JLH-JTR

J.A. KELLER, Regional Director,

South Central Regional Office, 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al. RESPONDENTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition

(“Recommendation”) have been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes.

You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so,

those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your

objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of

this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions

of fact.

I. Background

Pending before the Court is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed by Courtney Mackintrush (“Mackintrush”), who is currently incarcerated

at the Pulaski County Detention Facility (“PCDF”) as a federal inmate. Doc. 1. Before

Case 4:15-cv-00667-JLH Document 5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 7
addressing the merits of this habeas action, the Court will review the relevant

procedural history giving rise to Mackintrush’s claims.

On April 9, 2010, Mackintrush received a federal sentence of eighty-four

months in the United States Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) for possession of a stolen

firearm, followed by three years of supervised release. Doc. 3-1 at 5-8; see United

States v. Mackintrush, E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:09CR00014-JLH.

On March 25, 2015, Mackintrush was transferred from USP-Beaumont to City

of Faith, a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) in Little Rock, to serve the remainder

of his federal sentence. Doc. 3-1 at 13, 22. His projected release date was May 20,

2015. Id. at 13.

On April 18, 2015, Mackintrush was involved in an incident at the RRC, during

which he destroyed or damaged property.1 Id. at 10-11, 13. Little Rock police officers

arrived on the scene, arrested Mackintrush, and took him to the PCDF. He was

subsequently charged in state court with second-degree criminal mischief. Id.

Because of his arrest, the RRC placed Mackintrush on “technical escape status,”

effective April 18, 2015, and the BOP requested the United States Marshals Service

(“USMS”) to lodge a federal detainer against Mackintrush. Id. at 11, 13, 16-17. 

1

According to the BOP’s incident report, Mackintrush “turned over furniture, destroyed

the flower pot, tore the water fountain away from the wall, tossed a trash can across the room,

used a stool to smash the glass on the main entrance door, destroyed the computer monitor, and

tore information off the notice board.” Doc. 1 at 11. 

2

Case 4:15-cv-00667-JLH Document 5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 7
 On June 22, 2015, Mackintrush appeared in Pulaski County Circuit Court and

entered a guilty plea to the criminal mischief charge. He was sentenced to one year in

the PCDF, with sixty-six days of jail credit Id. at 11, 16, 18. 

On September 21, 2015, Mackintrush completed his state sentence. Thereafter,

he remained in the PCDF as a federal prisoner, pursuant to the federal detainer. Id. at

11, 17, 22, 34. Mackintrush’s current projected release date from the PCDF is

December 23, 2015. Id. at 20-21, 34. In calculating the new release date, the BOP

considered the period from April 19, 2015 through September 21, 2015 to be

“inoperative time.” Id. at 21. 

In this § 2241 action, Mackintrush argues that: (1) the BOP “illegally

stopped/suspended” his federal sentence at the time of the April 18, 2015 incident,

when it should have continued running; and (2) the BOP and the USMS “erroneously

relinquished ... primary jurisdiction” over him to state authorities on that date.

According to Mackintrush, he completed serving his federal sentence, at the latest, on

July 20, 2015, i.e., his original projected release date of May 20, 2015, plus a sixtyday sanction he received from the BOP for the April 18, 2015 incident. Doc. 1 at 6-10.

Respondents argue that Mackintrush’s claim is without merit. Doc. 3.

For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that this § 2241 action be

dismissed with prejudice. 

3

Case 4:15-cv-00667-JLH Document 5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 7
II. Discussion

Under BOP policy, if an inmate within the “extended limits of [federal]

confinement,” e.g., a facility such as a RRC, is arrested by state or local authorities as

a result of new unrelated criminal activity, the inmate is considered to be in “escape

status.” BOP Program Statement 5550.06 ¶ 8 (1999) (Doc. 3-1 at 27-32). This policy

is based, in part, on 18 U.S.C. § 4082(a), which provides: 

The willful failure of a prisoner to remain within the extended limits of

his confinement, or to return within the time prescribed to an institution

or facility designated by the Attorney General, shall be deemed an

escape from the custody of the Attorney General punishable as provided

in chapter 35 of this title. 

When an inmate is in “escape status,” his federal sentence becomes “inoperative.” The

sentence does not resume running: (1) until he returns to federal custody; or (2) the

BOP designates the location where he is serving any new state or local sentence as the

place to serve his existing federal sentence. BOP Program Statement 5880.30 ch. V

¶ 2(a) (1993) (Doc. 3-1 at 24-26); see 18 U.S.C. § 3568 (inmate is entitled to credit

toward service of his federal sentence only for “days spent in custody in connection

with the offense or acts for which the sentence was imposed”).

This Court must defer to the BOP’s policies as long as they are based on a

“permissible construction” of the applicable statutes. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 61

(1995). The BOP’s policies (as contained in BOP Program Statements 5550.06 and

4

Case 4:15-cv-00667-JLH Document 5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 7
5880.30) are reasonable interpretations of the applicable statutes, and are based on

established law. See Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193, 196 (1923) (“Escape from

prison interrupts service, and the time elapsing between escape and retaking will not

be taken into account or allowed as a part of the term.”); United States v. Luck, 664

F.2d 311, 312 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“It is well established that when the service of a

sentence is interrupted by conduct of the defendant the time spent out of custody on

his sentence is not counted as time served thereon.”); Palacio v. Schultz, 2007 WL

895770, *5 (D.N.J. Mar. 21, 2007) (deferring to BOP’s interpretation of its own

policies and finding that habeas petitioner’s arrest “falls squarely within the BOP’s

definition of ‘escape’ from a [community corrections center]”).

 Thus, the Court must defer to the BOP’s reasonable and permissible

construction of its own policies and related federal statutes, which provide that

Mackintrush’s federal sentence stopped running on April 18, 2015 when he was

arrested by state authorities and removed from the RRC; thereby making him an

“escapee.” At the time of his arrest, the BOP did not designate the PCDF as the place

for him to serve the remainder of his federal sentence. On September 22, 2015, after

completion of his new state sentence, Mackintrush once again became a federal

inmate, and his federal sentence resumed. 

Finally, Mackintrush is not entitled to relief under the “primary jurisdiction”

5

Case 4:15-cv-00667-JLH Document 5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 7
doctrine. The federal government lost primary jurisdiction of Mackintrush upon his

“escape,” and it did not regain primary jurisdiction until he completed serving his state

sentence on September 21, 2015. See Newell v. Page, 362 F.2d 538, 539 (10th Cir.

1966) (“Appellant by his own act of escape interrupted his right to continuous service

of his [federal] sentence and cannot complain of the acts of comity between

sovereigns or the imposition and service of other lawful sentences that prolonged,

again through his own conduct, the interruption of service of his original sentence.”);

Fisher v. Holinka, 2008 WL 4330560, *4 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 24, 2008) (state obtained

primary jurisdiction by arresting inmate after escape from federal prison). 

Accordingly, the Court recommends that this § 2241 habeas action, challenging

the calculation of Mackintrush’s federal sentence, be dismissed because it is without

merit.

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for 

6

Case 4:15-cv-00667-JLH Document 5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 7
Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, be DENIED and this case be DISMISSED, WITH

PREJUDICE. 

DATED THIS 14th DAY OF December, 2015.

____________________________________

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

7

Case 4:15-cv-00667-JLH Document 5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 7 of 7