United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
CLIFFORD WILLIAM WHITE (BOP Register No. 27992-180), Petitioner,
MAUREEN UNDERWOOD, Warden, Respondent.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Clifford William White, a federal prisoner, in custody at FCI
Seagoville at least at the time he initiated this action,
filed an amended pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting his immediate
release and asserting that his “present confinement is
illegal, as [he has] served all of [his] sentence and earned
all good time under statute (as amended 12/21/2018 by First
Step Act).” Dkt. No. 8 at 5; see Id.
(“The BOP is relying on my old projected release date
of 5/27/2019 and asserting that it does not need to implement
changes [under the First Step Act] until later. Case Manager
and Warden defer to national BOP
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 Sam A. Lindsay.
undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendation that the Court should summarily
dismiss the amended 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). This 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.
was convicted “on one count of possession of matter
containing visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually
explicit conduct and on one count of producing visual
depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct,
” he challenged the denial of his suppression motion on
appeal, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed.
United States v. White, No. 06-51607, 2007 WL
2438002 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); see also United
States v. White, No. 7:06-CR-96 (W.D. Tex.). Bureau of
Prisons's records available online reflect that his
current projected release date is May 25, 2019 and that he
may now be located at a residential reentry center in San
basis for White's sole ground for relief appears to be
that “[t]he 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.”
Schmutzler v. Quintana, Civ. A. No. 5:19-046-DCR,
2019 WL 727794, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 20, 2019). While
Section 102(b)(1) of the First Step Act of 2018, Public Law
115-391, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) to permit federal
inmates to earn 54 days of good conduct time for each year of
the sentence imposed, effectively abrogating Barber v.
Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010)[, ] this provision has not
yet taken effect: Section 102(b)(2) of the Act specifically
provides that the amendments made in subsection 102(b) of the
Act take effect only when the Attorney General completes the
“risk and needs assessment system” required by
Section 101(a) of the Act. Section 101(a) does not require
completion of the system until 210 days after the Act's
enactment. Thus, Section 102(b)(1) will not take effect until
approximately July 2019.
Id. at *2 (denying similar Section 2241 petition in
part on this basis).
the relief that White seeks under the First Step Act has not
yet taken effect, it plainly appears that he is not entitled
to relief pursuant to the operative habeas petition.
Court should summarily dismiss Petitioner Clifford William
White's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241.
of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be
served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any
party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions,
and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). In order to
be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding
or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis
for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate
judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation where
the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely
incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before
the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file
specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from
appealing the factual ...