Harris v. Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SEAN HARRIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25-3006-JWL ) Warden, FCI-Leavenworth, ) ) Respondent. ) ) _______________________________________) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he challenged the denial of certain credits under the First Step Act (FSA). By Memorandum and Order of April 9, 2025, the Court denied the petition. Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling (Doc. # 10), which motion the Court now denies.

By his petition, petitioner claimed that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had denied him First Step Act (FSA) credits that he earned between the date of his sentencing and the date of his arrival at his designated BOP facility. In denying the petition, the Court concluded that petitioner had failed to show a statutory violation because he had not shown that he participated in programming and productive activities that have been determined as appropriate and assigned to him in accordance with the particularized assessment of his risk of recidivism, which assessment was done after his arrival at his designated BOP facility. See Harris v. Warden, FCI-Leavenworth, 2025 WL 1067634, at *2-3 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2025) (Lungstrum, J.). The Court further noted that petitioner had provided no evidence and had given very little information concerning the alleged productive activities for which he sought FSA credits. See id. at *3.

In his present motion, petitioner provides evidence of a BOP policy stating that credits may be earned once a prisoner has opted in by completing an assessment survey, and he reiterates that he completed that survey at another facility before arriving at his designated facility. He also provides additional information concerning the activities for which he sought credit. Petitioner still has failed to show, however, that those activities have been approved for credit for him under his assessment. Thus, there is no basis for the Court to reconsider its prior denial of the petition.

IT IS THEREFFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 10) is hereby denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 6th day of May, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.

/s/ John W. Lungstrum Hon. John W. Lungstrum United States District Judge