Powell v. Warden, FCI Beaumont Low

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM ORDER overruling petitioner's objections and adopting the magistrate judge's 23 Report and Recommendation. ORDERED that the respondents motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (#16) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 3/25/2024. (KMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JACOB ALAN POWELL,
Petitioner,
versus
WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT LOW,
Respondent.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-CV-581

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Jacob Alan Powell, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine
L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to the applicable laws and
orders of this court. The magistrate judge recommends granting the respondent’s motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (#16) and denying the petition.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. Petitioner filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. This requires a de novo review
of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
After careful consideration, the court concludes petitioner’s objections are without merit.
To the extent petitioner argues that the written judgment in his criminal case differs from the
sentence orally pronounced by the court during sentencing, the proper avenue for correcting the
original judgment is Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 which is normally used to correct a
scrivener’s error. See United States v. Escajeda, 8 F.4th 423, 428 (5th Cir. 2021). Alternatively,

petitioner may seek relief by filing a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Since petitioner was sentenced before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, however, this court lacks jurisdiction to correct the judgment in his
criminal case.
Further, to the extent petitioner claims his participation in the Inmate Financial
Responsibility Act was coerced because refusal would render him ineligible to earn certain time
credits under the First Step Act, the claim is without merit. “[I]nmates who decline to participate
or fail to comply with their agreed upon financial plan may face consequences such as limitations
on work details or housing placement.” United States v. Diehl, 848 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir.
2017); 28 C.F.R. § 545.11. Petitioner, however, has “no entitlement, constitutional or otherwise,
to any of the benefits agreeing to participate in the IFRP would provide . . . .” United States v.
Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, “the imposition of the conditions in
§ 545.11(d) does not violate an inmate’s liberty interests under the Due Process Clause.”
Driggers v. Cruz, 740 F.3d 333, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2014).
ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.

The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. It is

2

ORDERED that the respondent’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for
summary judgment (#16) is GRANTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in
accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 25th day of March, 2024.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3