UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                
Eric Alan Faleide,                  Case No. 24-cv-3325 (JWB/SGE)        

               Petitioner,                                               
v.                                                                       
                                           REPORT AND                    
B. Eischen, FPC-Duluth Warden,         RECOMMENDATION                    
               Respondent.                                               

    This matter is before the Court on Eric Faleide’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 
under 

. (Pet.; Dkt. No. 1.) In his Petition, Mr. Faleide challenges the 
Federal Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) calculation of his First Step Act time credits (“FTCs”) 
under 

. For the reason outlined below, the Court recommends that Mr. 
Faleide’s Petition be DENIED, and this action be dismissed without prejudice.   

                      I.   BACKGROUND                                    
    Mr. Faleide was sentenced to a 120-month term of imprisonment on September 7, 
2021 for Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of a Controlled 
Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C § 846. (Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 7.) Mr. Faleide is currently 
a prisoner at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota and is eligible to earn FTCs 

under 

(d). (Id. ¶ 4.) Upon arrival at FCI McDowell, his first BOP 
designated institution, Mr. Faleide began earning FTCs on October 21, 2021. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 16.) 
To date, Mr. Faleide has earned 365 days of time credits towards early release and 15 days 
of time credits towards pre-release custody. (Id. ¶19.) Mr. Faleide filed his Petition for 
habeas relief on July 19, 2023. (Pet. 1.) His projected statutory release date is March 20, 
2028. (Decl. ¶20.)                                                        
                        II.  ANALYSIS                                    

    Mr. Faleide asserts two claims. First, he argues the BOP’s interpretation of the First 
Step Act contradicts the plain language of the statute, resulting in an erroneous calculation 
of the date he should have started accruing FTCs at a rate of 15 days for every 30 days of 
programming. Second, he asserts that he should have accrued FTCs starting from the day 
of his sentencing and for the days he was transferred between facilities. Mr. Faleide 

requests an order directing the BOP to recalculate his FTCs. Warden Eischen counters that 
the BOP correctly calculated Mr. Faleide’s FTCs and that the “Court lacks jurisdiction over 
his request for additional FTCs.” (Resp’t’s Resp. 1-2, 13; Dkt. No. 6.)   
    “When a prisoner is not challenging either the fact or the duration of his 
confinement, habeas is not the proper remedy, and the court lacks jurisdiction over his 

claims.” Johnson v. Birkholz, No. 21-CV-2017 (PJS/LIB), 

, at *1 (D. 
Minn. Aug. 5, 2022). Placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement is 
not a cessation of BOP custody, and “[a] legal action seeking transfer from one form of 
BOP custody to another (like a legal action seeking transfer from one BOP facility to 
another) is not a challenge to the fact or duration of confinement.” 

 Accordingly, 

courts of this District and elsewhere within the footprint of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit have held repeatedly that a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus is not the appropriate procedural vehicle through which to bring a claim 
concerning calculation of FTCs that would affect only the date of potential placement in 
prerelease custody. See, e.g., Henderson v. Eischen, No. 23-CV-2250 (PJS/TNL), 

, at *1-2 (D. Minn. Nov. 5, 2024); Abieanga v. Eischen, No. 24-CV-3131 
(JWB/JFD), 

, at *1-3 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2024); Sharma v. Eischen, 

No. 24-CV-2619 (JWB/DJF), 

, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 28, 2024); 
Fongers v. Garrett, No. 2:24-CV-0046 (LPR/PSH), 

, at *2 (E.D. Ark. 
Aug. 1, 2024); Young v. Eischen, No. 23-CV-3227 (PJS/JFD), 

, at *3 
(D. Minn. Jan. 3, 2024).                                                  
    This Court similarly concludes that habeas is not the appropriate procedural vehicle 

for Mr. Faleide to present his claims for relief. Mr. Faleide has already earned 365 credits 
towards supervised release. (Decl. ¶ 19.) “Eligible federal inmates can earn no more than 
365 days of credit towards their supervised release date.” Gallop v. Segal, No. 24-CV-1357 
(JWB/DTS),  

,  at  *2  (D.  Minn.  May  14,  2024), report  and 
recommendation adopted, No. 24-CV-1357 (JWB/DTS), 

 (D. Minn. 

June 11, 2024) (citing 

(G)(3)). Thus, any additional FTCs Mr. Faleide 
earns  or  demands  in  his  Petition  would  be  applied  towards  his  pre-release  custody 
placement date. 

 Consequently, Mr. Faleide’s two claims amount to a challenge to his 
place  of  confinement  (pre-release  custody)  rather  than  the  duration  or  fact  of  his 
confinement.                                                              

    Because Mr. Faleide’s claims challenge his place of confinement, and not the 
duration or fact of his confinement, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition, which 
should be denied without prejudice on that basis. See Ex parte McCardle, 

 (1868) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”). Mr. 
Faleide  counters  that  prisoners  are  now  allowed  to  file  habeas  petitions  that  do  not 
challenge the fact or duration of their sentence and cites Jones v. Hendrix, to support this 
argument. (Pl.’s Reply 8; Dkt. No. 10) (citing Jones v. Hendrix, 

 (2023)). 

But Jones addressed the use of 

 to circumvent 

 limitations 
on second or successive motions, which is inapplicable here. 

 (2023).  
    As explained above, a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle to obtain the 
relief that Mr. Faleide seeks. Johnson, 

, at *1. Thus, the Court concludes 
that it lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims Mr. Faleide 

raises in his habeas petition.1                                           
                     III.  RECOMMENDATION                                
 Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:                                                  
 1.  Eric Alan Faleide’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

 (Dkt. No. 1) be DENIED.                                         
 2.  That this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of         
    jurisdiction.                                                        

Dated:    November 13, 2024                                               
                                       s/Shannon G. Elkins               
                                       SHANNON G. ELKINS                 
                                       United States Magistrate Judge    


1 Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the Court does not address the 
merits of the parties’ arguments on Mr. Faleide’s two claims.             

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                
Eric Alan Faleide,                  Case No. 24-cv-3325 (JWB/SGE)        

               Petitioner,                                               
v.                                                                       
                                           REPORT AND                    
B. Eischen, FPC-Duluth Warden,         RECOMMENDATION                    
               Respondent.                                               

    This matter is before the Court on Eric Faleide’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 
under 

. (Pet.; Dkt. No. 1.) In his Petition, Mr. Faleide challenges the 
Federal Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) calculation of his First Step Act time credits (“FTCs”) 
under 

. For the reason outlined below, the Court recommends that Mr. 
Faleide’s Petition be DENIED, and this action be dismissed without prejudice.   

                      I.   BACKGROUND                                    
    Mr. Faleide was sentenced to a 120-month term of imprisonment on September 7, 
2021 for Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of a Controlled 
Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C § 846. (Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 7.) Mr. Faleide is currently 
a prisoner at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota and is eligible to earn FTCs 

under 

(d). (Id. ¶ 4.) Upon arrival at FCI McDowell, his first BOP 
designated institution, Mr. Faleide began earning FTCs on October 21, 2021. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 16.) 
To date, Mr. Faleide has earned 365 days of time credits towards early release and 15 days 
of time credits towards pre-release custody. (Id. ¶19.) Mr. Faleide filed his Petition for 
habeas relief on July 19, 2023. (Pet. 1.) His projected statutory release date is March 20, 
2028. (Decl. ¶20.)                                                        
                        II.  ANALYSIS                                    

    Mr. Faleide asserts two claims. First, he argues the BOP’s interpretation of the First 
Step Act contradicts the plain language of the statute, resulting in an erroneous calculation 
of the date he should have started accruing FTCs at a rate of 15 days for every 30 days of 
programming. Second, he asserts that he should have accrued FTCs starting from the day 
of his sentencing and for the days he was transferred between facilities. Mr. Faleide 

requests an order directing the BOP to recalculate his FTCs. Warden Eischen counters that 
the BOP correctly calculated Mr. Faleide’s FTCs and that the “Court lacks jurisdiction over 
his request for additional FTCs.” (Resp’t’s Resp. 1-2, 13; Dkt. No. 6.)   
    “When a prisoner is not challenging either the fact or the duration of his 
confinement, habeas is not the proper remedy, and the court lacks jurisdiction over his 

claims.” Johnson v. Birkholz, No. 21-CV-2017 (PJS/LIB), 

, at *1 (D. 
Minn. Aug. 5, 2022). Placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement is 
not a cessation of BOP custody, and “[a] legal action seeking transfer from one form of 
BOP custody to another (like a legal action seeking transfer from one BOP facility to 
another) is not a challenge to the fact or duration of confinement.” 

 Accordingly, 

courts of this District and elsewhere within the footprint of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit have held repeatedly that a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus is not the appropriate procedural vehicle through which to bring a claim 
concerning calculation of FTCs that would affect only the date of potential placement in 
prerelease custody. See, e.g., Henderson v. Eischen, No. 23-CV-2250 (PJS/TNL), 

, at *1-2 (D. Minn. Nov. 5, 2024); Abieanga v. Eischen, No. 24-CV-3131 
(JWB/JFD), 

, at *1-3 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2024); Sharma v. Eischen, 

No. 24-CV-2619 (JWB/DJF), 

, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 28, 2024); 
Fongers v. Garrett, No. 2:24-CV-0046 (LPR/PSH), 

, at *2 (E.D. Ark. 
Aug. 1, 2024); Young v. Eischen, No. 23-CV-3227 (PJS/JFD), 

, at *3 
(D. Minn. Jan. 3, 2024).                                                  
    This Court similarly concludes that habeas is not the appropriate procedural vehicle 

for Mr. Faleide to present his claims for relief. Mr. Faleide has already earned 365 credits 
towards supervised release. (Decl. ¶ 19.) “Eligible federal inmates can earn no more than 
365 days of credit towards their supervised release date.” Gallop v. Segal, No. 24-CV-1357 
(JWB/DTS),  

,  at  *2  (D.  Minn.  May  14,  2024), report  and 
recommendation adopted, No. 24-CV-1357 (JWB/DTS), 

 (D. Minn. 

June 11, 2024) (citing 

(G)(3)). Thus, any additional FTCs Mr. Faleide 
earns  or  demands  in  his  Petition  would  be  applied  towards  his  pre-release  custody 
placement date. 

 Consequently, Mr. Faleide’s two claims amount to a challenge to his 
place  of  confinement  (pre-release  custody)  rather  than  the  duration  or  fact  of  his 
confinement.                                                              

    Because Mr. Faleide’s claims challenge his place of confinement, and not the 
duration or fact of his confinement, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition, which 
should be denied without prejudice on that basis. See Ex parte McCardle, 

 (1868) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”). Mr. 
Faleide  counters  that  prisoners  are  now  allowed  to  file  habeas  petitions  that  do  not 
challenge the fact or duration of their sentence and cites Jones v. Hendrix, to support this 
argument. (Pl.’s Reply 8; Dkt. No. 10) (citing Jones v. Hendrix, 

 (2023)). 

But Jones addressed the use of 

 to circumvent 

 limitations 
on second or successive motions, which is inapplicable here. 

 (2023).  
    As explained above, a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle to obtain the 
relief that Mr. Faleide seeks. Johnson, 

, at *1. Thus, the Court concludes 
that it lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims Mr. Faleide 

raises in his habeas petition.1                                           
                     III.  RECOMMENDATION                                
 Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:                                                  
 1.  Eric Alan Faleide’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

 (Dkt. No. 1) be DENIED.                                         
 2.  That this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of         
    jurisdiction.                                                        

Dated:    November 13, 2024                                               
                                       s/Shannon G. Elkins               
                                       SHANNON G. ELKINS                 
                                       United States Magistrate Judge    


1 Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the Court does not address the 
merits of the parties’ arguments on Mr. Faleide’s two claims.