Supreme Court denies petition on good-time cases
6/23/06
The Supreme Court in April denied petitions for certiorari from two prisoners challenging the way the federal Bureau of Prisons awards good-conduct credit.
In Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 05-8268, a case from the 5th Circuit, and O’Donald v Johns, No. 05-8504, from the 3rd Circuit, the Court was asked to review whether the Bureau of Prisons correctly interpreted the good-time statute. The BOP calculates the credit based on the amount of time a prisoner serves in prison. The prisoners contend the statute directs the credit be applied to the length of the sentence. If the prisoners are correct, they are entitled to earn seven days more a year for every year they are sentenced.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion about the denial of certiorari. Such opinions regarding denials are relatively rare. He explained that the Court declined review because the courts of appeals that addressed the issue unanimously rejected the prisoners’ position. He stressed that the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the petitions did not reflect the Court’s opinion on the merits of the case “and certainly does not represent an expression of any opinion concerning the wisdom of the government’s position.”
He echoed the prisoners’ arguments that “[g]iven the numbers affected and the expense of housing prisoners, [the issue] surely also has a significant impact on the public fisc [budget].” Signaling his own opinion of the merits, Justice Stevens wrote: “Both the text and the history of the statute strongly suggest that it was not intended to alter the pre-existing approach of calculating good-time credit based on the sentence imposed.”
Finally, he emphasized that Congress could step in to settle the matter, as it did once before. He wrote that in 1959, Congress amended the old good-time statute because the courts misinterpreted it to require that good-time credits be calculated based on time served, not the sentence imposed. “Congress,” he wrote, “rejected this judicial determination because it had the troubling effect of ‘requir[ing] well-behaved prisoners to serve longer sentences of confinement than they would under the method of computation which has been used through half a century.”
Another petition for certiorari, Mujahid v. Daniels, No. 05-8678, is still pending Court consideration. In addition, three courts of appeals are considering the issue. The 10th Circuit is reviewing it for the first time, and the 2nd and 4th Circuits are being asked to take a second look. FAMM will continue to work with attorneys in those cases and evaluate legislative options as well.