Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_20-cv-00071/USCOURTS-ared-2_20-cv-00071-0/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 

DELTA DIVISION 

DAVID W. TAYLOR 

Reg. #13549-074 PETITIONER 

 

v. 2:20-cv-00071-BSM-JJV 

DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Warden, 

Forrest City Low RESPONDENT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge 

Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. 

Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the 

objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports 

your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the 

United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings 

and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

 1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

 2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not 

offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 2:20-cv-00071-BSM Document 6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

 3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form 

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial 

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing. 

 From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Pending is Mr. Taylor’s “Emergency” Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For Writ of Habeas 

Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. (Doc. No. 2.) I have conducted a preliminary review of 

the instant Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 

States District Courts. Based on that review, I recommend the Petition be dismissed. 

Relief under § 2241 shall not extend to a prisoner unless he is “in custody in violation of 

the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “If ‘it plainly 

appears from the petition [and any attached exhibits] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

the district court,’ the court must summarily dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive 

pleading.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005) (quoting Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts). Habeas Rules 2 and 4 are applicable to 

§ 2241 petitions through Rule 1(b). To avoid summary dismissal of a § 2241 petition, a petitioner 

must state facts that “point to a real possibility of constitutional error” or violation of federal law.

Mayle, 545 U.S. at 655. Here, for the following reasons, Mr. Taylor’s Petition is without merit 

and - based on Mayle - summary dismissal is appropriate. 

Case 2:20-cv-00071-BSM Document 6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

II. ANALYSIS

 A. Loss of Good Time Credits 

 Mr. Taylor first raises an issue regarding good time credits that occurred years ago while 

he was in prison in Victorville, California. That issue was adjudicated and dismissed with 

prejudice by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Taylor v. Tews, 

Case No. CV 16-5943 GW (MRW). Mr. Taylor’s ground one is, therefore, frivolous. 

 B. Confiscation of Legal Documents/Denied Access to the Court 

 Petitioner says, “Staff confiscated my legal documents and . . . hindered my ability to 

challenge loss of good-time and this affected my sentence.” (Doc. No. 2 at 8.) He further says, “I 

was denied due process, staff retaliated because I help assist with other[s] with there [sic] legal 

matters. They deliberately hindered, thwarted to prevent me and others from accessing the courts.” 

(Id.) Petitioner raises First Amendment claims here; matters not cognizable through habeas. 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 is reserved for issues of unconstitutional/unlawful custody. If he chooses, Petitioner 

may pursue this claim through a properly filed civil rights action. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. 

Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

 C. Denied Participation in the Residential Drug and Alcohol Program (RDAP) and 1-year 

Sentence Reduction 

 Mr. Taylor states the sentencing court recommended that he participate in RDAP despite 

his bank robbery convictions. (Doc. No. 2 at 9.) The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) offers RDAP to 

inmates who have been determined to have substances abuse problems. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(1). 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2) provides, in part, that an inmate who is incarcerated for a nonviolent 

offense and who has “successfully completed a program of residential substance abuse treatment” 

may have his sentenced reduced by up to one year by the BOP. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2). (emphasis 

Case 2:20-cv-00071-BSM Document 6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

added).1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has emphasized that 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3621(e)(2)(B) is permissive, finding that the BOP “‘may’ grant early release, but [does] not 

guarantee eligible inmates early release.” Zacher v. Tippy, 202 F.3d 1039, 1041 (8th Cir. 2000) 

(citing Bellis v. Davis, 186 F.3d 1092, 1094 (8th Cir. 1999); see also Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 

239-42 (2001) (finding that § 3621(e)(2)(B) makes any reduction in sentence discretionary and 

discussing that “[w]hen an eligible prisoner successfully completes drug treatment, the Bureau has 

the authority, but not the duty, both to alter the prisoner’s conditions of confinement and to reduce 

his term of imprisonment”). 

 Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 550.55, which is set forth in BOP Program 

Statement 5331.02, provides certain restrictions for early release.2 It specifically provides that, 

 

1

18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2) provides in whole that: 

Incentive for prisoners’ successful completion of treatment program.-- 

(A) Generally.--Any prisoner who, in the judgment of the Director of the Bureau 

of Prisons, has successfully completed a program of residential substance abuse 

treatment provided under paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall remain in the 

custody of the Bureau under such conditions as the Bureau deems appropriate. If 

the conditions of confinement are different from those the prisoner would have 

experienced absent the successful completion of the treatment, the Bureau shall 

periodically test the prisoner for substance abuse and discontinue such conditions 

on determining that substance abuse has recurred. 

(B) Period of custody.--The period a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense 

remains in custody after successfully completing a treatment program may be 

reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such reduction may not be more than one 

year from the term the prisoner must otherwise serve. 

18 U.S.C. § 361(e). 

2

The Court notes that it appears § 550.55 used to be codified at § 550.58. 

Case 2:20-cv-00071-BSM Document 6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

“[a]s an exercise of the Director’s discretion,” inmates who have a prior felony or misdemeanor 

conviction for robbery are not eligible for early release. 28 C.F.R. 550.55(b)(4)(iii). 

 Given Petitioner’s underlying convictions for bank robbery, he is clearly not eligible for 

early release. Accordingly, his ground three is meritless. 

 D. Bureau of Prisons has Failed to Follow the Procedures of the First Step Act 

 For his fourth ground, Petitioner says the BOP has incorrectly calculated good time credit 

to which he is entitled based on the First Step Act (FSA). To understand Mr. Taylor’s argument, 

it is important to recite his relevant criminal history. On February 25, 2002, Mr. Taylor appeared 

before the United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee (Chattanooga) and pleaded 

guilty to three counts of “Bank Robbery by Force or Violence.” USA v. Taylor, 1:02cr00009-

TRM-CHS. For these robberies, he was committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a 

total term of 96 months. He served this sentence and, while on supervised release, was indicted 

on February 10, 2009 for another bank robbery “by force and violence, and by intimidation.” USA 

v. Taylor, 1:09-cr-13, (Doc. No. 6). Mr. Taylor again pleaded guilty and this time was sentenced 

to 188 months. And since Mr. Taylor committed the bank robbery while on supervised release, he 

received an additional – consecutive -18 months in the 2002 case. USA v. Taylor, 1:02cr00009-

TRM-CHS, (Doc. No. 40). 

 Mr. Taylor is presently committed to the BOP for combined 206 months. The First Step 

Act increases good time credit based on the total number of months served. The BOP has 

computed any relief pursuant to the First Step Act based on a “206-month aggregate term sentence 

with a projected release date of February 6, 2024.” (Doc. No. 2 at 35.) 

 Section 102(b) of the FSA amends 18 U.S.C. 3624(b) to indicate that inmates may receive 

up to 54 days of GCT credit for each year of the sentence imposed by the court, instead of for each 

Case 2:20-cv-00071-BSM Document 6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

year of actual time served. Therefore, Mr. Taylor believes he should also receive good time credit 

for the 96 months initially imposed in 2002. This is not the law. 

 The FSA is based on the practical application of good time credits historically awarded by 

the BOP. By awarding good time credits based on the actual time served, the amount of credits 

inmates actually received was 47 days versus the intended 54 days per year. See U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, Bureau of Prisons: Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to 

Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison, GAO-12-320, February 2012, pp. 23-25. As a prisoner’s time 

was reduced through good time credits, so was the actual time credited. 

 Here, Mr. Taylor wants additional good time credit for the 96-month sentence he already 

served. This is not the law and Mr. Taylor’s ground four is frivolous. 

III. CONCLUSION

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 2) be DISMISSED and the 

requested relief be DENIED. 

 2. The Pending Motions (Doc. Nos. 3 and 4) be DENIED consistent with the 

Recommendations herein. 

 DATED this 6th day of April 2020. 

 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 2:20-cv-00071-BSM Document 6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 6 of 6