Finch v. Warden, FCI Sandstone

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DOUGLAS ROBERT FINCH,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FCI SANDSTONE,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-CV-2300 (LMP/JFD)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Under the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), some prisoners may earn time credits
toward their release from custody or toward earlier placement in prerelease custody by
participating 	in 	evidence-based 	recidivism 	reduction 	(“EBRR”) 	programming 	or
productive activities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4). Douglas Robert Finch claims in a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that the Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”) precluded his eligibility to earn FSA time credits between the date his
sentence commenced (June 5, 2023) and the date he arrived at his first designated
institution (August 9, 2023). Respondent, the warden of the facility where Mr. Finch is
currently incarcerated, opposes the petition and asserts that the BOP properly determined
Mr. Finch’s eligibility to earn FSA time credits. Respondent acknowledges that Mr. Finch
has exhausted his claim. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the
petition be denied.
CASE 0:25-cv-02300-LMP-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 6

2
I. 	Background
Mr. Finch is serving a 135-month sentence, which was imposed on June 5, 2023.
(Beyer Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 7; Ex. A at 2, Dkt. No. 7-1.) He has been in custody since his
sentencing date. (Beyer Decl. ¶ 3.) Individuals who are sentenced but not yet designated to
an institution are usually housed in a U.S. Marshals Service-contracted facility, such as a
county jail, or a BOP facility with allocated bedspace. (Beyer Decl. ¶ 11.) Mr. Finch was
in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service from June 15 to July 5, 2023, in a non-BOP
facility. (Beyer Decl. ¶ 16; Ex. C at 1, Dkt. No. 7-3.) From July 5 to July 6, 2023, he was
housed as a holdover inmate at FTC Oklahoma City. (Id.) From July 6, 2023, to August 9,
2023, he was housed in a non-BOP facility. (Id.) Mr. Finch did not engage in any EBRR
programming or productive activities in those facilities. (Beyer Decl. ¶ 17.)
Mr. Finch arrived at his first designated institution, FCI Gilmer, on August 9, 2023.
(Beyer Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C at 1.) That date was also the first day of Mr. Finch’s first risk and
needs assessment period. (Beyer Decl. ¶ 5.) The BOP considers him eligible to earn FSA
time credits as of August 9, 2023. (Beyer Decl. ¶ 15; Ex. B at 1, Dkt. No. 7-2.)
As of June 30, 2025, Mr. Finch’s projected release date was December 21, 2031,
accounting for 180 days of time credits he has earned since August 9, 2023. (Beyer Decl.
¶ 21, Ex. A at 4.) Mr. Finch is currently incarcerated at FCI Sandstone.
II. 	Standard of Review
A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who “is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). Habeas relief is available to a federal prisoner who challenges the BOP’s
CASE 0:25-cv-02300-LMP-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 6

3
execution of his sentence, Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 711 (8th Cir. 2002),
including the computation of the sentence, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498 (1973).
III. 	Discussion
Under the FSA, eligible federal prisoners who “successfully complete[] evidence-
based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities” earn time credits. 18
U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A). FSA time credits are “applied toward time in prerelease custody
or supervised release.” Id. § 3632(d)(4)(C). “Prelease custody” includes home confinement
and residential reentry centers. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3624(g)(2). If the prisoner has a term of
supervised release imposed as part of his sentence, then the BOP “may transfer the prisoner
to begin any such term of supervised release at an earlier date, not to exceed 12 months,
based on the application of time credits under section 3632.” Id. § 3624(g)(3).
Mr. Finch argues he was eligible to earn FSA time credits as of the date of his
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(B)(ii). (Pet. at 12.) This section provides that
“[a] prisoner may not earn time credits . . . during official detention prior to the date that
the prisoner’s sentence commences under section 3585(a).” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(B)(ii).
Mr. Finch interprets this provision to mean that a prisoner must be allowed to earn time
credits as of his sentencing date. That is not what the plain language of the statute says,
however. Section 3632(d)(4)(B)(ii) says that a prisoner cannot earn time credits before the
sentence commences.
Moreover, Mr. Finch’s petition faces another hurdle. A prisoner must participate in
EBRR programming or productive activities in order to earn FSA time credits, and that
participation cannot occur until the prisoner has a risk and needs assessment that provides
CASE 0:25-cv-02300-LMP-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 6

4
guidance about what the prisoner’s programing needs are. See Herndon v. Eischen, No. 25-
CV-453 (NEB/DTS), 2025 WL 3531974, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2025), R. & R. adopted,
2025 WL 3527985 (D. Minn. Dec. 9, 2025). These requirements are consistent with the
relevant statues. Congress tasked the BOP with implementing a risk and needs assessment
system for each prisoner. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(h)(1). A risk and needs assessment is used, in
part, 	to 	“determine 	the 	type 	and 	amount 	of 	evidence-based 	recidivism 	reduction
programming that is appropriate for each prisoner and assign each prisoner to such
programming accordingly, and based on the prisoner’s specific criminogenic needs.” 18
U.S.C. § 3632(a)(3); 	see also 	§ 3632(b) (providing that EBRR programming and
productive activities shall be assigned for prisoners based on guidance from the completed
risk and needs assessment).
Mr. Finch’s first risk and needs assessment period began on August 9, 2023, when
he arrived at FCI Gilmer. His specific criminogenic needs had not been determined before
that date. Because there was no risk and needs assessment to inform the BOP of Mr. Finch’s
programming needs, there were no qualifying EBRR programming or productive activities
in which Mr. Finch could participate.
Nor has Mr. Finch shown that he participated in any qualifying EBRR programming
or productive activities before his arrival at FCI Gilmer. The FSA “is explicitly clear that
FTCs are only granted when a prisoner ‘successfully completes’[] approved programming
or activities.” Martinez v. Eischen, No. 24-CV-637 (KMM/DJF), 2024 WL 1598772, at *2
(D. Minn. Apr. 12, 2024) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A)); accord Solberg v. Eischen,
No. 23-CV-3568 (ECT/DTS), 2024 WL 3251713, at *2–3 (D. Minn. May 7, 2024), R. &
CASE 0:25-cv-02300-LMP-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 6

5
R. adopted, No. 23-CV-3568 (ECT/DTS), 2024 WL 3086630 (D. Minn. June 21, 2024).
Mr. Finch argues in his reply that he participated in “programming” during his detention at
the Sherburne County Jail before his sentencing. (Pet’r’s Reply at 2, Dkt. No. 9.) He directs
the Court to the transcript of his sentencing and a record of coursework he completed. See
United States v. Finch, No. 21-CR-157 (PAM/ECW), Dkt. No. 358 at 12–13 (Sherburne
County Jail Transcript), Dkt. No. 434 at 8 (Sentencing Transcript). Mr. Finch has not
shown, however, that the programming qualified under the FSA as EBRR programming or
productive activities. Moreover, the programming was completed before his sentencing and
thus cannot qualify for FSA time credits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(B)(ii) (prohibiting
time credits from being earned “during official detention prior to the date that the prisoner’s
sentence commences under section 3585(a)”); Phelan v. Eischen, No. 25-CV-1724
(NEB/JFD), 2025 WL 2394006, at *1 (D. Minn. July 1, 2025) (“A prisoner cannot earn
FSA time credits before his or her sentence commences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a),
even if the prisoner is in custody prior to sentencing.”), R. & R. adopted, 2025 WL 2393323
(D. Minn. Aug. 18, 2025).
Mr. Finch did not participate in any qualifying EBRR programming or productive
activities before his arrival at FCI Gilmer. Accordingly, the Court recommends that his
habeas petition be denied.
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
CASE 0:25-cv-02300-LMP-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 6

6
1. 	The petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Douglas Robert Finch (Dkt.
No. 1) be DENIED; and
2. 	This matter be DISMISSED.
Dated: February 12, 2026 	s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Under D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days
after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to
those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See D. Minn.
LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set
forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cv-02300-LMP-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 6