IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TYRONE KELLY, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-896 : Plaintiff : (Judge Neary) : v. : : ACTING WARDEN, et al., : : Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

This is a civil case in which the plaintiff, Tyrone Kelly, asserts that the United States Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is violating the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) in its implementation of the First Step Act (“FSA”). The case was initially filed as a putative class action seeking injunctive relief on behalf of Kelly and a class of similarly situated inmates. The court previously dismissed the class complaint without prejudice to Kelly’s right to file an amended complaint limited to his individual claims. As explained below, that amended cI.o mplaFinatc wtuialll n Boawc kbger doiusmndis &se Pd rwoictehd purreajul dHiciset. ory

Kelly is a prisoner in Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI-Schuylkill”). He filed this case on May 20, 2025, on behalf of himself and a putative class of other inmates incarcerated in federal prisons to challenge the BOP’s policies implementing the FSA. (Doc. 1). On June 25, 2025, the court dismissed the class complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, noting that a pro se incarcerated litigant could not sue on behalf of a class of other inmates. (Docs. 8-9). The court granted Kelly leave to file an amended complaint “that asserts claims for relief solely on his own behalf.” (Doc. 8 at 5). Kelly subsequently filed two motions for leave to amend aIIn. d a pLroepgoasl eSdta anmdeanrdde d complaint. (Docs. 10, 12, 18).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act authoriinz efos ram dais ptraiucpt ecroiusrt to review a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding or seeks redress against a 1 2 governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915su(ea) s(p2o)n; t e28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court is required to identify cognizable claims and to dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

1 ( 22)

(e)(2) provides:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have bee(nA p)aid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that(—B) (tih)e allegation of poverty is untrue; or (tihi)e action or appeal— (iii )is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

2 ( a2)8 S Uc.rSe.Ce.n §i n1g9.15A provides:

--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in w(bh)i cGhr oa upnridsso nfoerr dseisemksi srseadlr.ess from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. --On review, the court shall identify cognizable claim(1s) or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-- (2) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In screening claims under Sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B), the court applies

the standard governing moti,o ns to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See e.g., Coward v. City of Philadelphia,

, 333 (E.D. Pa. 2021); Smith v. Delaware, 236 F. Supp.3d 882, 886 (D. Del. 2017). This standard requires the court to “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny,

(3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings, Ltd.,

, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)).

Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide “the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Phillips,

(alteration in original) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). To test the sufficiency of the complaint, the court conducts a three-step inquiry. See Santiago v. Warminster Township,

(3d Cir. 2010). In the first step, “the court must ‘tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.’”

(alteration in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009)). Next, the factual and legal elements of a claim must be separated; well-pleaded facts are accepted as

true, while mere legal conclusions may be disregarded. Id. at 131-32; see Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,

(3d Cir. 2009). Once the court isolates the well-pleaded factual allegations, it must determine whether they are sufficient to show a “plausible claim for relief.” Iqbal,

(citing Twombly,

). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts “that allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct allegperdo.” s Ieq bal,

. Courts must liberalPlyr oc osen strue complaints brought by litigants. Sause v. Bauer,

(2018). complaints, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 UII.IS. . 89,D 9i4s c(u2s0s0i7o)n.

The FSA allows eligible inmates who successfully complete “evidence-based recidivism reduction programs” (“EBRRs”) or productive activities (“PAs”) to receive time credits to be applied toward time in pre-release custody or supervised release.

(d)(4)(A). An inmate may earn ten days of credit for every thirty days of successful

participation.

Eligible inmates who have been assessed at a minimum or low risk of recidivism who do not increase their risk of recidivism over two consecutive assessments may earn an additional five days of credit for every thirty days of participation.

Kelly’s original complaint sought injunctive relief on behalf of himself and other similarly situated inmates compelling the BOP to properly apply the FSA. (Doc. 1). The court dismissed that complaint and directed Kelly to file an amended complaint limited to his individual claims. (Docs. 8-9). Kelly filed an amended complaint, but rather than alleging any facts to support his individual claims, he simply refiled the original class

complaint with several pages deleted and several words and phrases redacted. (Compare Doc. 1, with Doc. 12). The resulting factual statement provides no facts from which any 3 legal claim could be inferred: Plaintiff [redacted] earned time credits will be equal to the remainder of [redacted] sentence [redacted]. Plaintiff [redacted] earned time credits will be equal to the remainder of his sentence as of [redacted], 2025. Defendants intend to imprison Plaintiffs [sic] until [redacted], months longer than the First Step Act allows.

(Doc. 12 at 13). To the extent they can be liberally construed as supplements to the amended complaint, plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend are similarly devoid of any factual allegations to support Kelly’s claims. The first motion provides general legal arguments regarding the FSA and does not contain any facts regarding Kelly’s specific claims, while the second motion seeks to name an additional defendant but does not allege any additional facts. (See Docs. 10, 18). Thus, because there are simply no facts alleged to support plaintiff’s claim that defendants are failing to properly implement the FSA, his amended complaint will be dismissed. Before dismissing a civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, courts must permit a curative amendment unless the amendment would be inequitable or futile. Phillips,

. The court will deny leave to amend as futile. Kelly has had m ultiple opportunities to sta te a claim and has failed to do so.

3 The court indicates words that plaintiff has crossed out from the original IV. Conclusion

Kelly’s amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. An appropriate order shall issue.

/S/ KELI M. NEARY Keli M. Neary United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: October 16, 2025