United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
JAMES B. MITCHELL BOP Register No. 47109-080, Petitioner,
WARDEN UNDERWOOD, Respondent.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
James B. Mitchell, a federal prisoner, in custody at FCI
Seagoville, filed a pro se application for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the
Bureau of Prison's (“BOP”) reliance on the
presentence report (“PSR”) prepared by the United
States Probation Office in the district in which he was
convicted (the “USPO”). See Dkt. No. 2;
see also United States v. Mitchell, No.
5:10-CR-50067-001 (W.D. Ark.).
resulting action has been referred to the undersigned United
States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from
United States District Judge Karen Gren Scholer.
undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendation that the Court should summarily
dismiss the habeas petition.
Background, Legal Standards, and Analysis
courts are authorized, under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, to
dispose of habeas corpus matters ‘as law and justice
require, '” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S.
770, 775 (1987). That statute “authorizes a district
court to summarily dismiss a frivolous habeas-corpus petition
prior to any answer or other pleading by the government,
” Gatte v. Upton, No. 4:14-cv-376-Y, 2014 WL
2700656, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) (footnote omitted).
And, under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts - equally applicable “to
§ 2241 habeas cases, ” Romero v. Cole,
No. 1:16-cv-148, 2016 WL 2893709, at *2 & n.4 (W.D. La.
Apr. 13, 2016) (collecting authority, including Castillo
v. Pratt, 162 F.Supp.2d 575, 576 (N.D. Tex. 2001)),
rec. accepted, 2016 WL 2844013 (W.D. La. May 12,
2016) - “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition, ” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts.
sole ground for relief, Mitchell claims that the BOP
“is knowingly using false information in my PSR (that I
knowingly used minors in my escort business)” and is
thus violating his “due process Constitutional
rights” under the Fifth Amendment. Dkt. No. 2 at 5. He
further explains that this allegedly false information
affects his “custody classification” and thus
denies him “eligibility to go to a camp or home
confinement.” Id. (further explaining that
“[a]n evidentiary hearing will prove the information in
my PSR is false and not a reliable source of information for
using by the BOP to determine my eligibility for the
while Mitchell mentions that this purportedly false
information prevented his early release after completing the
BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Program
(“RDAP”), see id., he clarifies that
“that is not the issue I am raising in this 2241
petition, but rather a violation of my Constitutional rights
using false information, ” id. at 7; see
also Mitchell v. Underwood, No. 3:17-cv-2939-D-BT, 2018
WL 3598778 (N.D. Tex. June 25, 2018) (denying Mitchell's
Section 2241 petition challenging the BOP's determination
that he was ineligible for early release under the RDAP),
rec. adopted, 2018 WL 3586662 (N.D. Tex. July 26,
as another court explained in a similar lawsuit, BOP
is authorized to use a [PSR] prepared by the USPO to
determine a prisoner's custody level. Although a prisoner
may challenge the accuracy of information in a [PSR], the
prisoner may not direct that challenge to the BOP.
See BOP Program Statement 5800.17. Rather, because a
[PSR] is a court document prepared by the USPO, a prisoner
seeking to challenge any aspect of a [PSR] must direct that
challenge to either the district court in which he was
convicted or the USPO. Id. If the USPO later reports
an inaccuracy, the BOP staff files that information with the
inmate's file and removes the document containing
inaccurate information. Id. Unlike the USPO, the BOP
has no authority to make any changes to a [PSR].
Gbor v. Entzel, No. ED CV 17-1666-R (PLA), 2017 WL
6755113, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) (citation omitted),
rec. accepted, 2017 WL 6734173 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21,
consistent with this framework, attached to Mitchell's
petition is a January 9, 2019 letter from a unit manager at
FCI Segoville to the Chief United States Probation Officer
for the Western District of Arkansas, providing:
Inmate James Mitchell has requested to challenge a portion of
his PSI. He has requested Unit Team forward these documents
to the USPO on his behalf. As per Program Statement 5800.17,
Unit Team will forward the inmates written challenge to the
Enclosed please find a written statement and copies of
supporting evidence inmate Mitchell, James, register number
47109-080 would like the USPO to consider when reading ...