Parrett v. Kallis
| Lee E Parrett |
| S Kallis |
| 4:2019cv04115 |
| June 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Michael M Mihm |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 8, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 JUDGMENT entered. (RK, ilcd) |
TEXT ORDER: DENYING Petitioner's #1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. On June 6, 2019, Petitioner filed his Petition requesting that the Court instruct the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to recalculate his sentence to reflect the additional days of good conduct credit to which he is entitled under the First Step Act ("the Act"). See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (Dec. 21, 2018). Petitioner, however, fails to include any argumentation (including the details of his underlying conviction(s)) to justify the application of good-conduct credits under the Act to him. Even if Petitioner was entitled to relief, the good-conduct credit recalculation does not take effect until, at the earliest, July 2019. Section 102(b)(1) of the Act amends 18 U.S.C. 3624 and authorizes BOP to award 54 days of good-time credit per year, rather than the 47 days previously awarded. But this change did not go into effect when the Act was signed into law on December 21, 2018. Instead, the change to the credit calculation will take effect after the Attorney General completes the "risk and needs assessment system" mandated in 101(a) of the Act. The Attorney General has 210 days from the First Step Act's effective date to do so. In short, the change to the good-time calculation will not take effect until the Attorney General complies the statutorily mandated assessment. Because BOP currently lacks authority to recalculate Plaintiff's good-time credits (if such credits are available to him), his challenge with this Court is premature. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases states the Court must "promptly examine" and dismiss a petition if it "plainly appears from the petition... that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Since Petitioner has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to relief under the Act, and due to the fact the law under which Petitioner seeks relief is not yet active, the Court DENIES his claim and DISMISSES his case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/28/2019. (JA, ilcd)
|
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Lee E Parrett.(KB, ilcd) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Parrett v. Kallis | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Lee E Parrett | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: S Kallis | |
| Represented By: | Greggory R Walters |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
