Rojas v. Segal
Rojas v. Segal
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Shannon L. Rojas, Civ. No. 23-1306 (PAM/DJF) Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Michael Segal, Warden, Respondent.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which provides for “prompt” review of petitions such as that Petitioner Shannon Rojas has filed.1 In the last several months, numerous prisoners at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota, have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the Bureau of Prisons is not correctly awarding time credits under the First Step Act of 2018 for participation in certain programming. These petitions have been uniformly rejected, including by this Court. See May 9, 2023, Order (Docket No. 8), Friday v. Segal, No. 23cv882 (D. Minn.).
Rojas’s Petition must similarly be rejected. As the BOP has determined, prisoners are not entitled to 10 (or 15) days of credit for each course they complete, but rather are entitled to that credit for each month of programming in which they participate. As one Magistrate Judge in this District noted, Rojas’s interpretation of the statute “would lead to Although the Petition is not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases nevertheless may be applied to the Petition. See Rule 1(b). absurd results” because a federal prisoner subject to a long-term sentence who enrolled in a large number of classes might be entitled to release after only a few months. Rice v. Segal, No. 23cv751 (ECT/DJF), Dkt. No. 6 at 3 (D. Minn. Apr. 24, 2023).
Moreover, even if the Court disagrees with the BOP’s interpretation of the statute, that interpretation is reasonable. Thus, under well-settled precedent, the Court must defer to it. Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208, 218 (2009). Rojas is not entitled to habeas-corpus relief.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 16, 2023 s/Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Shannon L. Rojas, Civ. No. 23-1306 (PAM/DJF) Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Michael Segal, Warden, Respondent.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which provides for “prompt” review of petitions such as that Petitioner Shannon Rojas has filed.1 In the last several months, numerous prisoners at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota, have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the Bureau of Prisons is not correctly awarding time credits under the First Step Act of 2018 for participation in certain programming. These petitions have been uniformly rejected, including by this Court. See May 9, 2023, Order (Docket No. 8), Friday v. Segal, No. 23cv882 (D. Minn.).
Rojas’s Petition must similarly be rejected. As the BOP has determined, prisoners are not entitled to 10 (or 15) days of credit for each course they complete, but rather are entitled to that credit for each month of programming in which they participate. As one Magistrate Judge in this District noted, Rojas’s interpretation of the statute “would lead to Although the Petition is not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases nevertheless may be applied to the Petition. See Rule 1(b). absurd results” because a federal prisoner subject to a long-term sentence who enrolled in a large number of classes might be entitled to release after only a few months. Rice v. Segal, No. 23cv751 (ECT/DJF), Dkt. No. 6 at 3 (D. Minn. Apr. 24, 2023).
Moreover, even if the Court disagrees with the BOP’s interpretation of the statute, that interpretation is reasonable. Thus, under well-settled precedent, the Court must defer to it. Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208, 218 (2009). Rojas is not entitled to habeas-corpus relief.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 16, 2023 s/Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.