Hall v. FCI Berlin, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Terry Matthew Hall
v. 	Case No. 19-cv-572-JL
Warden, FCI Berlin
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is Terry Matthew Hall’s initial pleading
(Doc. No. 1), which he prepared by filling out a form “Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” 	To the
extent his filing has been docketed as a § 2241 petition, the
matter is here for preliminary review to determine, among other
things, whether it asserts facially valid claims challenging the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) calculation of his sentence.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases (“§ 2254 Rules”); § 2254 Rule 1(b) (authorizing court to
apply § 2254 Rules to petitions filed under § 2241); LR
4.3(d)(4).
Mr. Hall, who was an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Berlin, New Hampshire (“FCI Berlin”) at the time
he filed this action, has asked this court in his form petition
for advice as to whether he can expect to receive a credit of
ten days per month, under the First Step Act, for programing,
landscaping work, and schoolwork he asserts he completed while
Case 1:19-cv-00572-JL Document 6 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 4

2
at FCI Beckley in West Virginia, as well as the programming he
has completed since the First Step Act was enacted. 	In that
regard, this court notes that the First Step Act, in pertinent
part, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4) to require the Attorney
General to develop a “risk and needs assessment” system that
would allow certain eligible inmates to earn ten days credit for
every 30 days of successful participation in programs completed
after the date of that Act’s enactment. 	See id.
Mr. Hall asked similar questions in a March 2019 letter
addressed to the court in the Eastern District of North
Carolina, where he had been sentenced, see United States v.
Hall, No. 5:14-cr-206-4BO (E.D.N.C.), asking that court whether
he would receive First Step Act credit for programming he had
completed. 	That court decided that Mr. Hall was seeking legal
advice and not the type of relief that would warrant converting
his letter into a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 	But
since Mr. Hall was an FCI Berlin inmate in March 2019, that court
sent him a blank form § 2241 petition and pointed him towards
this court as the right place to file a section 2241 petition,
if he wanted to challenge how the BOP had calculated his
sentence credits. 	See Apr. 8, 2019 Order, Hall (E.D.N.C. Apr.
8, 2019) (ECF No. 392).
This court similarly concludes that the questions Mr. Hall
asks and the answers he seeks through his form § 2241 petition
Case 1:19-cv-00572-JL Document 6 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 4

3
-- answers and advice from this court about whether, under the
First Step Act, he will get credit for programming he has
completed -- are not the type of claims that fall within the
scope of this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
After Mr. Hall has used the BOP Administrative Remedy Program to
challenge any decisions the BOP might make about his sentence
credits, see 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.19, he may file a § 2241
petition in the federal court with jurisdiction over the warden
in the facility where he is held at that time.1 	Nothing in the
record suggests that Mr. Hall has exhausted those administrative
remedies. 	For those reasons, the district judge should dismiss
Mr. Hall’s § 2241 petition without prejudice, for lack of
jurisdiction.
Conclusion
For reasons stated above, the district judge should dismiss
this petition for lack of jurisdiction. 	The clerk’s office is
directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to Mr.
Hall at the United States Penitentiary Lee in Virginia, the
federal facility where he appears to be currently incarcerated.
1The BOP Inmate Locator states that Mr. Hall is presently an
inmate at the United States Penitentiary Lee in Virginia.
Case 1:19-cv-00572-JL Document 6 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 4

4
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Failure to file objections within the specified
time waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 20, 2020
cc: 	Terry Matthew Hall, pro se
Case 1:19-cv-00572-JL Document 6 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 4