United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
the Court are several pro se motions filed by the
defendant, Lee L. Parrett (“Parrett”), seeking a
reduction of his sentence. (Docket #38, #39, and #41). All
must be denied.
January 18, 2002, Parrett was sentenced by the now retired
Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr. to 55 months of imprisonment
and three years of supervised release following his plea of
guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Docket
#21). The Court has learned from the Probation Office that
following Parrett's sentencing in federal court, he was
sentenced in state court for two separate cases and received
a total prison term of 15 years. Parrett's federal
sentence was applied consecutively to his state term.
7, 2008, Parrett filed a motion for a sentence adjustment,
asking the Court to amend the sentence in this case to make
it concurrent to his state sentence. (Docket #29). On July
11, 2018, Judge Clevert denied the motion and indicated that
the Court had no authority to adjust the sentence. (Docket
#30). Not satisfied, Parrett filed another motion on June 10,
2015, asking the Court to adjust his federal sentence so that
he could receive credit toward his federal sentence for the
time he spent in state custody. (Docket #34). On August 13,
2015, the late Judge Rudolph T. Randa, who had been
reassigned to the case, denied the motion. (Docket #35).
Judge Randa indicated that Parrett's concern about his
sentence had already been addressed, and Parrett simply did
not like the answer. Id. Judge Randa further
indicated that “Parrett should no longer write the
Court on this issue because there is nothing more for this
Court to do. Any further communication will be
unanswered.” Id. at 2.
October 28, 2016 and February 17, 2017, Parrett again filed
motions asking the Court to adjust his sentence in order to
credit time spent in state custody toward his federal
sentence. (Docket #38 and #39). The case has been reassigned
to this branch of the court for disposition of those motions,
as well as a third addressed below. For the same reasons
already articulated by Judges Clevert and Randa,
Parrett's motions asking that his federal sentence be
adjusted to run concurrent to his state sentence will be
denied. Parrett need not ask again.
on February 28, 2019, Parrett filed a motion purportedly
under the First Step Act asking the Court to adjust his
sentence. (Docket #41). He wants seven days of “good
time” credit for each year of his sentence.
Id. at 1. The First Step Act, enacted December 21,
2018, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) to change the
manner in which good time credits are calculated by
increasing the maximum allowable days from 47 to 54 per year.
See Public Law 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, § 102.
However, the Act's good-time provisions have not yet
taken effect; before they do, the Attorney General must
complete the “risk and needs assessment system, ”
the deadline for which is 210 days after the Act's
enactment. Id. at §§ 101, 102. Therefore,
the change in calculation of good-time credit will not take
effect until approximately July 2019. See id.
courts are limited under Article III of the United States
Constitution to deciding “cases” and
“controversies.” A claim must be
“ripe” before a court can hear it, meaning in
this context that an administrative decision must be
formalized and its effects must be felt in a concrete way by
the challenging party. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387
U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977). “A
claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon
contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated,
or indeed may not occur at all.” Texas v. United
States, 423 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (internal citations
omitted). Because the Bureau of Prisons has no authority to
recalculate Parrett's good-time credit under the Act
until the relevant provisions take effect in approximately
July 2019, the question of whether the bureau erred in
administering Parrett's sentence on that basis is unripe.
when the good-time provisions of the Act do go into effect,
the proper vehicle for Parrett to use to request relief
(after exhausting administrative remedies) would be a
petition for habeas corpus under 21 U.S.C. § 2241. A
Section 2241 habeas petition is properly lodged against
“the person who has custody” over the petitioner.
28 U.S.C. § 2242; id. § 2243 (“The
writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person
having custody of the person detained.”). In
“core” habeas cases-those in which the prisoner
challenges his present physical confinement-this will be the
warden of the prison where he is being held. Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). As a general rule,
jurisdiction “lies in only one district: the district
of confinement.” Id. at 443. It appears
Parrett is currently incarcerated in Pekin, Illinois.
Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear
Parrett's Section 2241 claim; he must go to the court in
the district where is confined. For all of these reasons,
Parrett's motion for a sentence reduction under the First
Step Act will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motions
for a sentence reduction (Docket #38, #39, and #41) ...