Watkins v. Warden of FCI-Lewisburg

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEMOS WATKINS,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF FCI-LEWISBURG,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:26-CV-00138
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Demos
Watkins (“Petitioner”), an inmate currently housed at the Federal Correctional
Institution Lewisburg (“FCI-Lewisburg”). (Doc. 1.) Specifically, Petitioner
alleges that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) should apply his earned time credits
under the First Step Act (“FSA”) in excess of 365 days towards placement in home
confinement. (Id.) 	The court finds that Petitioner’s claims under the FSA are not
cognizable under Section 2241. Therefore, the court will dismiss the petition.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus
that the court received and docketed on January 21, 2026. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner
provides documentation that shows he was granted the full 365 days of early
release from earned time credits under the FSA. (Doc. 1-1.) However, it appears
that he has earned time credits in excess of the 365-days, totaling 1981 days with
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 11

2
595 days available to apply to towards prerelease placement such has a residential
reentry center (“RRC”) or home confinement. (Id.) Plaintiff filed the petition
seeking application of these 595 days of excess credit under the FSA. (Doc. 1.)
Plaintiff states that the BOP is “refusing to apply Petitioner’s earned credits to
effectuate home confinement placement,” but also states he has not filed any
administrative remedy process, such as a BP-8 form, requesting the credits be
applied. (Id., p. 5.) 1 He alleges that he is not required to exhaust his administrative
remedies because he is currently eligible for placement in home confinement and
any administrative process would take too long. (Id., p. 6.)
Petitioner paid the requisite filing fee with his petition. (Doc. 3.) The court
will now screen the petition pursuant to Rule 4.
VENUE
A § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the petitioner is in
custody. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484,
494–95 (1973) (“The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the person who seeks
relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful
custody.”) Petitioner is being held at FCI-Lewisburg in Union County,
Pennsylvania, which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). Therefore, this
court is the proper venue for the action.
1 For ease of reference, the court use the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 11

3
S TANDARD
This matter is before the court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
The § 2241 petition has been given preliminary consideration pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)). Rule 4 may be
applied at the discretion of the district court as it is the duty of the court to screen
out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that would be placed on the
respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer. Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141
(6th Cir. 1970).
DISCUSSION
The court initially recognizes that Petitioner has not exhausted his
administrative remedies, nor even made a request of the BOP to apply his FSA
time credits. However, without making a finding of whether or not exhaustion is
excused in this case, the court finds that the petition is not cognizable under
Section 2241.
In his habeas petition, Petitioner argues that the BOP has failed to release
him to pre-release custody that he alleges is mandatory under the FSA. (Doc. 1.)
The question Petitioner presents concerning the application of FSA earned time
credits in excess of 365 days has been debated among federal courts. The question
is whether it is mandatory or discretionary for the BOP to apply credits accrued
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 11

4
under the FSA in excess of the 365-day early release period and applicable to early
pre-release custody.
The FSA allows eligible inmates who successfully complete evidence-based
recidivism reduction programs or productive activities to receive time credits to be
applied toward time in pre-release custody or supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §
3632(d)(4)(A), (C). An inmate can earn ten (10) days of credit for every thirty (30)
days of successful participation. See id. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(i). Furthermore, eligible
inmates assessed at a minimum or low risk of recidivism who do not increase their
risk of recidivism over two (2) consecutive assessments may earn five (5)
additional days of time credit for every thirty (30) days of successful participation,
for a total of fifteen (15) days’ time credit per thirty (30) days’ successful
participation. See id. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(ii).
If time credits under the FSA are properly earned by an eligible inmate,
application of those time credits to a prisoner’s sentence is governed by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(g). Section 3632(d)(4)(E)(i) provides “[a] prisoner is ineligible to apply
time credits under subparagraph (C) if the prisoner is the subject of a final order of
removal under any provision of the immigration laws[.]” However, there are
individuals, such as petitioner, who are subject to an immigration detainer that is
not a final order of removal. Therefore, Petitioner is still considered eligible for
the application of his FSA credits.
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 11

5
The FSA further states “the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 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.”
18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(3). “Thus, the time credits may be used to transfer a prisoner
into prerelease custody earlier than he otherwise would be and to release the
prisoner to supervised release up to 12 months earlier than he would be.” Malik v.
Warden Loretto FCI, No. 23-2281, 2024 WL 3649570, at *1 (3d Cir. Aug. 5,
2024).
There is currently a split among district courts as to whether earned time
credits in excess of the maximum 365 days is statutorily required to be applied
towards time in prerelease custody, or if the application of credits to prerelease
custody is in the sole discretion of the BOP.
A number of courts have interpreted § 3632(d)(4)(C) to mandate that all
earned time credits must be applied either toward early supervised release or
toward pre-release custody because there is no statutory cap on time credits applied
toward pre-release custody. See Mohammed v. Engleman, No. 2:25-CV-01011-
MWC-MBK, 2025 WL 1909836, at *13 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2025), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 2:25-CV-01011-MWC-MBK, 2025 WL 2294325
(C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2025); see Mateo v. Warden, FCI Danbury, No. 3:25-CV-00814
(VAB), 2025 WL 2625263, at *8 (D. Conn. Sept. 11, 2025) (“The BOP’s decision”
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 11

6
to deny application of time credits in excess of those applied to supervised release
“conflicts with the First Step Act’s express language: time credits “shall be applied
toward time in prerelease custody or supervised release.””); Williams v. Warden,
FCI Berlin, No. 23-CV-509-LM-AJ, 2025 WL 2207024, at *5 (D.N.H. Aug. 4,
2025) (“Because the [BOP] memoranda purport to cap the application of
Williams’s time credits and deny him the ability to apply time credits toward
placement in prerelease custody on the basis of an ineligibility criterion that does
not appear in the FSA, the memoranda violate the FSA.”)
In contrast, other courts have found that the application of excess earned
time credits to placement in pre-release custody is in the discretion of the BOP.
See, e.g., Akinmadeyemi v. Warden Thompson, FCI Fort Dix, No. 27-7003, 2025
WL 2857084, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2025) (finding that the sole discretion of where
an inmate is housed is held with BOP) citing Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319,
331 (2011) and Pisman v. Warden, Allenwood FCI Low, No. 23-2048, 2023 WL
6618238, at *1 (3d Cir. Oct. 11, 2023) (“pre-release placement decisions are
committed to the BOP’s sole discretion”).
Other courts have taken a third approach and held that the application of
excess credits under the FSA is not cognizable under Section 2241. See, e.g.,
Balsam v. Warden, Coleman – Low, No. 5:24-cv-360-SPC-PRL, 2025 WL
2687234 (M.D. Fl. Sep. 19, 2025) (finding that such claims concern the conditions
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 11

7
of his confinement and not the execution of his sentence and is not redressable
through a habeas proceeding).
This district, too, has differing decisions on the issue of whether the claim is
cognizable under Section 2241. In Miles v. Arviza, District Judge Julia Munley
explained:
The core of habeas corpus primarily involves a challenge to the fact or
duration of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-
88, 500 (1973). In Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235
(3d Cir. 2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
held that—in addition to the fact or duration of confinement—a
prisoner may also challenge the “execution” of their sentence via a
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	See id. at 241-44. 	In Woodall, the
petitioner asserted a challenge to BOP regulations that affected whether
he served a portion of his sentence in a federal penal institution or in a
“Community Corrections Center” (CCC). See id. at 237.
The Third Circuit agreed with the Second, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth
Circuits and held that habeas jurisdiction lies for prisoners challenging
the 	“manner 	of 	their 	imprisonment,” 	including 	the 	place 	of
confinement, when the differences in custody reflect more than a
“simple” or “garden variety” prison transfer. See Woodall, 432 F.3d at
242-43. 	The panel highlighted the significant disparities between
carrying out a sentence in a CCC and carrying out a sentence in an
ordinary penal institution and concluded that the petitioner’s claim was
a “proper challenge to the ‘execution’ of his sentence,” and thus
“habeas jurisdiction lies.” Id. at 243-44.
Following Woodall, confusion arose as to what exactly “execution of
the sentence” meant for a habeas petitioner. 	Even the Woodall panel
conceded that the precise meaning of this phrase is “hazy.” Id. at 242.
In Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2012), the court of
appeals endeavored to clarify execution-of-sentence habeas challenges
in the Third Circuit. 	The Cardona panel first performed an in-depth
review of Woodall and McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933 (3d Cir.
2010), 	precedential 	decisions 	that 	had 	considered 	execution-of-
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 7 of 11

8
sentence habeas claims and had determined that the claims presented
were cognizable under Section 2241. 	See Cardona, 681 F.3d at 536-
37.
From these decisions, the Cardona panel distilled that the linchpin for
habeas jurisdiction for an execution-of-sentence claim was whether the
petitioner was challenging the “carrying out” or “putting] into effect”
of their sentencing order. See id. The reason the petitioners in Woodall
and McGee could seek review of the execution of their sentences under
Section 2241, the court of appeals explained, was because their
petitions “both challenged BOP conduct that conflicted with express
statements in the applicable sentencing judgment.” 	Id. at 536. 	The
Cardona panel thus held that “[i]n order to challenge the execution of
[a] sentence under § 2241, [a petitioner] would need to allege that [the]
BOP’s 	conduct 	was 	somehow 	inconsistent 	with 	a 	command 	or
recommendation in the sentencing judgment.” Id. at 537. In that case,
the petitioner had not made such an allegation, so the panel found that
he was not properly challenging the “execution” of his sentence and
therefore the district court had no jurisdiction to consider his Section
2241 petition. See id. at 537, 538.
No. 3:24-CV-2252, 2025 WL 981870, *2–3 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 2025). 2 Judge
Munley acknowledged the confusing history on the question in the Third Circuit
and cited Vasquez v. Strada:
Most notably, in Vasquez v. Strada, 684 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2012) (per
curiam)—a precedential decision issued just 18 days before Cardona v.
Bledsoe—the Third Circuit plainly stated that a prisoner “may resort to
federal habeas corpus to challenge a decision to limit his RRC
placement.” 	Vasquez, 684 F.3d at 433 (citing Woodall, 432 F.3d at
243-44). In Vasquez, the petitioner was not asserting that a BOP action
was inconsistent with a command or recommendation in his sentencing
judgment; rather, he claimed that the BOP had failed to comply with
the federal prisoner reentry initiative with respect to RRC placement
and that the BOP had improperly amended 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) by
2 On the same date District Judge Munley entered a second decision using identical logic. Goss
v. Greene, No. 3:24-CV-1133, 2025 WL 981864 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 2025).
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 8 of 11

9
adding a sixth factor. See id. Nevertheless, the court of appeals did not
find that the Section 2241 petition must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction based on the substance of the petitioner’s habeas claim.
Instead, 	the 	panel 	perfunctorily 	found 	the 	petitioner’s 	prerelease
custody claim to be cognizable. 	See id. (citing Woodall, 432 F.3d at
243-44).
Id., at *3. Judge Munley concluded that under Cardona, “execution-of-sentence
habeas claims in the Third Circuit are tightly circumscribed,” and held that
petitions seeking transfer to pre-release custody based on the FSA that do not
allege that the BOP’s conduct is somehow inconsistent with a command or
recommendation in his sentencing judgment fail to meet the stringent jurisdictional
standards set forth in Cardona. Id., at *5. Directly following this decision, the
Chief District Judge Matthew Brann entered two decisions in line with Miles:
Chaffin v. Warden, No. 4:24-CV-01909, 2025 WL 1042316 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 8,
2025); McMillian v. Warden, No. 4:24-CV01730, 2025 WL 1042313 (M.D. Pa.
Apr. 8, 2025).
However, a few days later, in Al Haj v. LCSI-Allenwood Warden, District
Judge Keli Neary held that because Woodall and Vazquez were earlier precedential
holdings of the Third Circuit, Cardona could not overrule them because it was a
subsequent panel decision of the Third Circuit rather than an en banc decision.
No. 1:24-CV-1193, 2025 WL 1115751, *3 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 2025).
Since the decision in Al Haj, all the decisions addressing the issue in this
district have followed the logic set forth in Miles. Torres-Benitez v. Warden, FPC-
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 9 of 11

10
Schuylkill, No. 3:25cv1357, 2025 WL 2550864 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 4, 2025); Barry v.
Greene, No. 3:25cv960, 2025 WL 2983167 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2025); Diarra v.
Greene, No. 3:25-CV-0964, 2025 WL 2997031 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2025); Rafiq v.
Green, No. 1:25-CR-01409, 2025 WL 3110563 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2025); Mier-
Garces v. Greene, No. 1:25-CV-02444, 2026 WL 27185 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2026).
The undersigned is persuaded by the rationale set forth in the Miles decision.
The court concludes that Cardona “delineate[s] the jurisdictional boundaries of
execution-of-sentence claims raised in Section 2241 petitions in this circuit.”
Miles, 2025 WL 981870 at *4.
Applying the jurisdictional instruction in Cardona, the court observes that
Petitioner does not allege that the BOP’s conduct is somehow inconsistent with a
command or recommendation in his sentencing judgment. (Docs. 1, 1-1.) Instead,
he alleges that the BOP is unlawfully executing his sentence in violation of federal
law. (Doc. 1, p. 5.) Therefore, applying Cardona’s “rigid” jurisdictional
boundaries, Petitioner’s habeas challenge is not cognizable. Therefore, his Section
2241 petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court offers no
opinion regarding the availability of other potential avenues of review for
Petitioner’s FSA claim involving pre-release custody, only that it cannot be
pursued through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 10 of 11

11
CONCLUSION
The Section 2241 petition asserts a challenge under the FSA regarding time
in pre-release custody but does not allege that the BOP’s conduct is somehow
inconsistent with a command or recommendation in his judgment of sentence. As
a result, this petition does not meet the jurisdictional requirements set forth in
Cardona. Therefore, the court must dismiss the petition.
An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: January 26, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00138-JPW-EW Document 4 Filed 01/26/26 Page 11 of 11