Plain v. Eischen
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-03154
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Plain v. B. Eischen, Warden, Judge Provinzino dismissed without prejudice Darrell Plain's petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons' decision that he is ineligible to earn sentence-reducing time credits under the First Step Act, holding that even though his court documents did not explicitly cite the specific fentanyl distribution penalty statute, the indictment, plea agreement, and sentencing judgment make clear he was convicted of and sentenced for that disqualifying offense.
Federal prisoners who were convicted of fentanyl distribution offenses and are seeking to earn time credits under the First Step Act to reduce their sentences, particularly those whose sentencing documents do not explicitly cite the specific penalty subsection of the drug statute.
What happened
In Plain v. B. Eischen, Warden (Case No. 25-cv-3154), prisoner Darrell Plain filed a federal petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) decision that he cannot earn 'earned time credits' (FTCs) — credits that can shorten a federal prison sentence — under the First Step Act of 2018. The BOP said Plain was disqualified because he was serving a sentence for a specific fentanyl distribution offense (distributing 40 grams or more of fentanyl, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi)), which the law expressly bars from earning these credits. Plain argued that because his indictment, plea agreement, and sentencing judgment only cited the general drug distribution statute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and never explicitly referenced the specific penalty subsection, the BOP could not fairly say he was convicted of that disqualifying offense.
The court rejected Plain's argument by closely examining the text of his criminal case documents. His indictment charged him with distributing '40 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide)' — language that is nearly word-for-word the same as the disqualifying statute. His plea agreement also reflected the exact sentencing range, fine, and supervised release term that the specific fentanyl penalty statute prescribes (five-year mandatory minimum, up to 40 years, up to $5,000,000 fine, at least four years of supervised release). The court found that these documents, taken together, make it clear beyond doubt that Plain was convicted of and sentenced for the disqualifying fentanyl offense, even without an explicit citation to the penalty subsection.
Judge Provinzino overruled Plain's objections to a prior report issued by Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz, adopted that report in full, and dismissed Plain's petition without prejudice (meaning Plain is not permanently barred from filing again). The court also distinguished a case Plain relied on — Valladares v. Ray — explaining that case does not require explicit statutory citations in court documents; it only requires sufficient evidence that a prisoner is serving a sentence for a listed disqualifying offense, which the record here plainly provides.
The detailed version
- Plain v. B. Eischen, Warden, No. 25-cv-3154 (LMP/DTS)
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge
- October 10, 2025
Background and Procedural History
Petitioner Darrell Plain is a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota. In June 2023, Plain was indicted in the Northern District of Illinois on narcotics offenses. In February 2024, he pleaded guilty to Count 3 of the indictment — distributing 40 grams or more of fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On June 6, 2024, he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. His indictment, plea agreement, and sentencing judgment all cited only 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (the general controlled substance distribution provision) and did not explicitly reference the penalty provision, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi).
Plain sought to earn FTCs under the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4), which allows eligible prisoners to earn time credits to reduce their sentences. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) determined Plain was ineligible because 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) bars prisoners 'serving a sentence for' a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) — the provision covering distribution of 40 grams or more of fentanyl — from earning these credits. Plain filed a habeas petition (a court petition challenging the legality of his imprisonment or prison conditions) in the District of Minnesota contesting the BOP's eligibility determination.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on September 9, 2025, recommending dismissal. Plain timely objected, triggering de novo review (independent review from scratch, without deference to the magistrate) by the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3).
Plain's Argument
Plain argued that because none of his criminal case documents — the indictment, plea agreement, or sentencing judgment — explicitly cited 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi), the BOP had no valid basis to find him disqualified from earning FTCs. He contended the R&R impermissibly inferred what the sentencing judge intended and effectively 're-sentenced' him for an offense not cited in the judgment. He cited Valladares v. Ray, 130 F.4th 74 (4th Cir. 2025), in support.
Court's Analysis
The court acknowledged that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) defines the criminal act of distributing a controlled substance, while § 841(b)(1) sets the punishment based on quantity and type of substance. The specific penalty for distributing 40 grams or more of fentanyl appears in § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi), prescribing a mandatory minimum of five years and maximum of 40 years' imprisonment, a maximum fine of $5,000,000, and a mandatory supervised release term of at least four years.
The court found that while the documents did not cite § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) by number, the substance of each document aligned precisely with that provision: - The indictment charged distribution of '40 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of fentanyl (N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide)' — essentially verbatim language from § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi). - The plea agreement reflected a statutory mandatory minimum of five years and a maximum of 40 years — the exact sentencing range in § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi). - The plea agreement noted a maximum fine of $5,000,000 and mandatory supervised release of at least four years — also matching § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi).
The court rejected Plain's reliance on Valladares v. Ray, explaining that the Fourth Circuit in that case found a prisoner was not convicted of a death-resulting sentencing enhancement because the plea agreement did not mention death, the sentencing judgment did not reflect the mandatory minimum triggered by that enhancement, and a post-judgment opinion explicitly stated the count of conviction did not charge the victim's death. By contrast, here the documents affirmatively reflect conduct and penalties matching § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi). The court held Valladares stands only for the proposition that sufficient evidence must exist that a prisoner is 'serving a sentence for a conviction' listed in § 3632(d)(4)(D) — not that documents must explicitly cite a specific subsection.
The court found no legal authority for Plain's position that an explicit statutory citation is required, and concluded that Plain is 'serving a sentence for a conviction' of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi), rendering him ineligible for FTCs under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi).
Disposition
Judge Provinzino overruled Plain's objections, adopted Magistrate Judge Schultz's R&R, and dismissed Plain's habeas petition without prejudice (meaning Plain is not permanently barred from reasserting claims in a future filing, though the opinion does not identify any specific basis for refiling). The Clerk was also directed to send copies of the order to Plain at both his current facility in Duluth, Minnesota, and FCI Cumberland Satellite Camp in Cumberland, Maryland.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.