Introduction to the 54-47 Cause

Mujahid v. Daniels, CA 03-36038

After the disappointing decision in Pacheco-Camacho, another Sheridan prisoner filed for relief challenging the BOP goodtime credit formulation. Sabil Mujahid, serving a ten-year sentence, asserted that the ambiguity that the Pacheco-Camacho court found in the context of a single-year sentence did not apply to a multi-year sentence. This district court agreed that Pacheco-Camacho was not controlling, but extended its logic none-the-less. The case is currently on appeal. Attached are the opening brief (edited with brief reference to White v. Scibana), the BOP’s response, and Mujahid’s reply. Litigants in other circuits will not be as constrained by Pacheco-Camacho, and should modify their pleadings accordingly.

• Reply
• Response
• AOB

 

White v. Scibana

In White v. Scibana, 314 F. Supp. 2d 834 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 23, 2004), Chief Judge Crabb reviewed the same statutory construction arguments made in Mr. Mujahid’s case and concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) unambiguously requires that a prisoner serving a ten-year sentence be eligible for up to 540 days of good time credit, not the 470 days allowed by the BOP. Further, the court pointed to the areas of statutory construction not addressed in Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001), that establish that “term of imprisonment” unambiguously means the sentence imposed by the judge, not time actually served. The detailed and well-reasoned opinion, a copy of which is attached, strongly supports grant of relief based on arguments not previously addressed by this Court in Pacheco-Camacho.

However,despite the well-reasoned decision of the trial court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court on Dec. 2, 2004.
White v. Scibana, 7th Cir., No. 04-2410, 12/02/04 (Sykes, J.).

• Opinion
• Memo
• Response

 

Administrative Remedies

We recommend exhaustion of administrative remedies to the warden (BP 8), the regional director (BP 9), and the national office (BP 10).  While we recognize the futility of administrative remedies, this procedural step removes a distracting issue from the litigation and demonstrates respect for at least the possibility that the BOP would do the right thing on its own.  If you need more information on exhaustion, the BOP administrative remedies manual is attached as one of the subcategories under Administrative Remedies.  If you file without exhaustion, some briefing in response to claims of failure to exhaust is attached. 

• Sample Exhaustion Memorandum (PDF Format)
• Program Statement

 
 
Habeas Corpus Petition

The basic jurisdiction for habeas corpus relief is under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed in the district of confinement.  A sample 2241 petition is attached, with the disclaimer that all pleadings should be individually researched, evaluated, adapted, and updated.
 

• Sample 2241 Petition (PDF Format)
• Sample Supporting Memorandum (PDF Format)

 

Other Pleadings in Support

The following documents can be adapted into a supporting memorandum.  If you do use them, the pleadings should be individually researched, evaluated, adapted to your jurisdiction, and updated.  Included are The Champion article, the Petition for Certiorari filed in Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood and the Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Pacheco-Camacho filed on behalf of the NACLD, FAMM, and NAFPD.

• Petition for Certiorari (PDF Format)
• Amici Curiae Brief (PDF Format)
• The Champion article (PDF Format)  

• Eliot Sash Brief
• Amicus Brief
• Williams Opinion

Exhibits To Memorandum

Mootness

• Mootness (WordPerfect format)