Cabrera-Lopez v. Molis

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Wendy Cabrera-Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
L. Molis, Warden,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-cv-4730 (NEB/SGE)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Wendy Cabrera-Lopez is a federal prisoner. Like most federal prisoners,
Cabrera-Lopez is scheduled to be transferred to a halfway house to serve the final portion
of her sentence. But Cabrera-Lopez believes that she will not be transferred to community
confinement as soon as she is entitled, and she has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus requesting that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) effect her transfer sooner
pursuant to the Second Chance Act (“SCA”).
Cabrera-Lopez’s habeas petition is now before the Court on preliminary review
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts.1 As a result of that review, this Court concludes that the habeas petition should be
denied and this matter dismissed.
Two statutes govern placement decisions regarding placement in community
confinement. One statute, the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), enables federal prisoners to
1 Cabrera-Lopez’s petition is not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases may nevertheless be applied to her petition. See Rule 1(b).
CASE 0:25-cv-04730-NEB-SGE Doc. 4 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
earn credits upon participating in “evidence-based recidivism reduction programs.” 18
U.S.C. § 3632(d). The exhibits to Cabrera-Lopez’s habeas petition show that the BOP
anticipates that she will earn 310 days’ worth of such credits and that the BOP intends to
award those credits. See Pet. Ex. at 4. The petition does not raise any objections regarding
this assessment.
The second statute, the SCA, permits the BOP to place prisoners in community
confinement for up to an additional 12 months. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). For “the shorter of
10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months,” the prisoner “may”—
not must, but “may”—be placed in home confinement. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(b)(2). Citing these
provisions, the BOP has agreed to transfer Cabrara-Lopez 12 days sooner than she might
otherwise be entitled under the FSA. Cabrera-Lopez believes that the BOP is shirking its
duty and that she is entitled to a far sooner placement in community confinement under the
SCA.
The problem for Cabrera-Lopez is that decisions under the SCA are categorically
left to the discretion of the BOP under the plain language of the SCA itself. “As . . . Courts
in this District have continually noted, the BOP has exclusive authority to determine the
placement of prisoners.” Williams v. Birkholz, No. 20-CV-2190 (ECT/LIB), 2021 WL
4155614, at *3 (D. Minn. July 20, 2021). “Nothing in . . . the Second Chance Act altered
the exclusivity of this authority to the BOP.” Id. Indeed, the SCA itself could hardly be
clearer about this. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(4). Whether additional time is needed for
Cabrera-Lopez to adjust to life outside of prison (as she contends) is a decision left to the
BOP, not to the federal courts.
CASE 0:25-cv-04730-NEB-SGE Doc. 4 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Cabrara-Lopez is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus directing that her transfer
to community confinement take place sooner. Accordingly, it is recommended that her
habeas petition be denied and this matter dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	The petition for a writ of habeas corpus of petitioner Wendy Cabrera-Lopez
(Dkt. 1) be DENIED; and
2. 	This action be DISMISSED.
Dated: January 12, 2026 	s/Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
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 Local Rule 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 Local
Rule 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-04730-NEB-SGE Doc. 4 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 3