United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
ORDER AND OPINION
Darrow, Chief United States District Judge.
before the Court is Petitioner Shannon Bennett's Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc.
1). This matter is now before the Court for preliminary
review of the § 2241 petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2243 and Rule 1(b) and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District
Courts. Because it plainly appears from the Petition and
attached exhibits that the Petitioner is not entitled to
relief and because Petitioner has failed to prosecute his
Petition, Petitioner's § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) is
originally filed this Petition (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 in the District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on February 26, 2019. The Petition was
transferred here on July 1, 2019 (Doc. 2). On that same day,
this Court ordered Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee or
provide the Court with a signed Application to Proceed in the
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs by July 22,
2019. The Order was sent to Petitioner's address of
record-which is listed as the Federal Correctional
Institution in Pekin, Illinois. However, the Court has
received the order back in the mail as undeliverable (Doc.
to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) inmate
locator, Petitioner is now with the RRM Chicago Residential
Reentry Office. A mailing address is not listed for inmates
on the BOP website, and Petitioner has not notified this
Court, nor the Northern District of Illinois, of his move.
Moreover, even if an address was provided, Petitioner's
address will soon be changing again, as his projected release
date is scheduled for this Friday, July 19, 2019.
See BOP Inmate Locator,
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited on July 17,
2019). It is Petitioner's duty to notify the court of a
change of address, as well as to pay the filing fee.
Accordingly, his Petition is dismissed for failure to
even if Petitioner had timely updated his address and paid
the filing fee, Petitioner's Petition fails on the
merits. Petitioner is seeking to compel the BOP to
recalculate his sentence and credit him with seven additional
days of good conduct time pursuant to amendments affecting
the calculation of good conduct time pursuant to the First
Step Act of 2018. Section 102(b)(1) of the First Step Act of
2018, Public Law 115-391, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1)
to permit federal inmates to earn 54 days of good conduct
time for each year of the sentence imposed. Under the
previous version of the statute, the BOP awards good conduct
time based on a prisoner's time served, which allows a
prisoner to earn only 47 days of good conduct time for each
year of the sentenced imposed.
the amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) have not yet
come into effect, making Petitioner's challenge
premature. Pursuant to section 102(b)(2) of the First Step
Act of 2018, the amendments “shall take effect
beginning on the date that the Attorney General completes and
releases the risk and needs assessment system under
subchapter D of chapter 229 of title 18, United States Code,
as added by section 101(a) of this Act.” Id.
Section 101(a), in turn, does not require completion of the
system until 210 days after the Act's enactment, which
will be on July 19, 2019. See also, Schmutzler v.
Quintana, No. CV 5: 19-046-DCR, 2019 WL 727794, at *2
(E.D. Ky. Feb. 20, 2019) (finding that Section 102(b)(1) of
the First Step Act will not take effect until July 2019);
Rizzolo v. Puentes, No. 1:19-CV-00290, 2019 WL
1229772, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019) (same); Shaw v.
Hart, No. 18-CV-07990 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2019), ECF No.
12 at 3-4 (same). Accordingly, Petitioner's claim is
premature, as the BOP is not yet required to change its
reliance on United States v. Walker, No.
3:10-cr-00298, ECF No. 110 (D. Or. Feb. 7, 2019) is
misplaced. In Walker, the petitioner argued that the
amendment should be effective immediately based on the
legislative history showing that the amendment was meant to
be a “fix” clarifying what 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)
“always meant but was not clearly articulated.”
Id., ECF No. 109 at 3. The district court granted
the relief requested, but specifically did so “without
a final determination of the merits of the legal
issues” due to the Government's failure to address
the merits and the “equities of the situation.”
Id., ECF No. 110 at 1. Moreover, the Court finds the
petitioner's argument in Walker regarding the
Act's legislative history is not persuasive in light of
the plain language of the Act.
course, the Court realizes that this means Petitioner, whose
projected release date is July 19, 2019-the same day as the
effective date of the act-will not benefit from the First
Step Act's amendments. However, it is up to Congress to
determine the effective date of their statutes. While it is
no doubt frustrating, Petitioner's position is no
different than any other prisoner who served their time prior
to the Act's effective date.
these reasons, Petitioner Shannon Bennett's Petition
(Doc. 1) is DISMISSED both for failure to prosecute and ...