Pittman v. Rardin
- Susan Nelson
- 0:26-cv-01662
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Pittman v. Rardin, No. 26-cv-1662, Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommends denying federal prisoner Earnest Lee Pittman Jr.'s petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of his earned-time credits because, even if the prison's regulation is unlawful, Pittman never alleged that he actually participated in any qualifying programs during the disputed period.
Federal prisoners who believe the Bureau of Prisons is miscalculating their earned-time credits under the First Step Act of 2018 by starting the accrual clock only upon physical arrival at a designated facility rather than from the earlier date their sentence legally commenced. This ruling specifically underscores that any such challenge must allege actual participation in qualifying programs during the disputed period, not merely legal eligibility.
What happened
In Pittman v. Rardin, Earnest Lee Pittman Jr., a federal prisoner held at FMC Rochester in Minnesota, filed a petition asking a federal court to order the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to credit him with earned-time credits (ETCs) — sentence reductions available under the First Step Act of 2018 for completing rehabilitation programs — for the 94 days between his sentencing on December 14, 2021, and his arrival at his designated prison facility on March 18, 2022. Pittman argued that a BOP regulation improperly starts the clock for earning ETCs only upon arrival at a designated facility, rather than from the earlier date when a sentence legally begins under federal law, which can include time spent in custody awaiting transfer. A significant number of courts, including others in this District, have agreed that the BOP regulation may conflict with federal law on this point.
Despite recognizing that legal tension, the court did not need to resolve whether the BOP's regulation is unlawful, because Pittman's petition had a more fundamental flaw: under the First Step Act, prisoners earn ETCs only by actually participating in approved rehabilitation programs or productive activities — mere eligibility or the passage of time is not enough. Pittman's petition alleged only that his sentence had legally 'commenced' during the transfer period, making him eligible for credits, but he never alleged that he participated in any specific qualifying program or activity during those 94 days. Without that allegation, his petition failed to meet the basic requirements for relief.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation on April 1, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied, that the case be dismissed, and that Pittman's application to proceed without paying court fees be denied as moot. The court also denied, without prejudice (meaning Pittman may try again with a proper request), his broadly worded motion to seal the entire court record, finding that he did not identify specific information requiring protection or propose less drastic alternatives such as redacting only sensitive details. Because this is a magistrate judge's recommendation rather than a final order, Pittman has 14 days after receiving it to file written objections with the District Court.
The detailed version
- Pittman v. Rardin · No. 0:26-cv-01662
- Susan Nelson
- Apr. 1, 2026
Background
Earnest Lee Pittman Jr. is a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota (FMC Rochester). He was sentenced on December 14, 2021, and remanded into federal custody, but did not arrive at his designated facility — the Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas (FCI–Forrest City) — until March 18, 2022, a gap of 94 days. In June 2025, Pittman reviewed his institutional records and discovered that his earned-time credits (ETCs) under the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA) were calculated as beginning only on March 18, 2022, omitting the transit period. He claimed this cost him 30 to 45 days of ETCs.
Pittman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 — a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge the legality of their custody or the conditions of their confinement — along with an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees (known colloquially as an IFP application). He also asked that the entire case record be sealed.
The Statutory and Regulatory Conflict
The FSA created a system under which prisoners can earn ETCs by completing approved evidence-based recidivism reduction programs or productive activities, which can then reduce their time in prison. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A). The FSA bars ETCs for programming completed "during official detention prior to the date that the prisoner's sentence commences" under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). Id. § 3632(d)(4)(B)(ii).
Section 3585(a) defines sentence commencement disjunctively: a sentence begins either (1) when the defendant is "received in custody awaiting transportation to" the official detention facility, or (2) when the defendant "arrives voluntarily to commence service of sentence at" that facility. Under this reading, Pittman's sentence could have commenced as early as December 14, 2021, even before he physically arrived at FCI–Forrest City.
The BOP's implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 523.42(a), states that an inmate begins earning ETCs only after "the date the inmate arrives or voluntarily surrenders at the designated [BOP] facility." This regulation effectively ignores the first trigger in § 3585(a) — being received in custody awaiting transport — and arguably conflicts with the statute by narrowing when ETC accrual begins. The opinion notes that a "substantial and growing body of district-court authority," including within the District of Minnesota, has found § 523.42(a) to be in conflict with the statutory text, citing Maestas v. Eischen, No. 24-cv-4337 (NEB/SGE), 2025 WL 4037762 (D. Minn. Oct. 9, 2025), among others.
Why the Court Did Not Reach the Conflict
Despite acknowledging the legal tension, Magistrate Judge Elkins concluded that it was unnecessary to resolve whether § 523.42(a) conflicts with § 3585(a) and § 3632 because the petition failed on a more basic ground: it did not allege that Pittman actually participated in any qualifying programming or productive activities during the disputed 94-day transit period.
The FSA is explicit: ETCs are earned only by prisoners who "successfully complete evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities." 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A). ETC eligibility is therefore activity-based, not merely status-based. Pittman's petition argued that because his sentence had legally commenced on December 14, 2021, he was automatically entitled to ETCs for that period. The court, relying on Crayton v. Eischen, No. 25-cv-1102 (NEB/DLM), 2025 WL 2421014 (D. Minn. June 12, 2025), and Harper v. Warden, Fed. Prison Camp Duluth, No. 26-cv-0240 (ECT/LIB), 2026 WL 716902 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2026), rejected that theory. The petition nowhere alleged participation in any specific program or activity during the transit period, which was described as a "fatal" omission.
Ruling on the Sealing Request
Pittman asked the court to seal "any and all documents" in the case. Magistrate Judge Elkins denied this request without prejudice — meaning Pittman may refile a more targeted request. The court explained that under the common law and Eighth Circuit precedent, including IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220 (8th Cir. 2013), courts must engage in a case-specific balancing of public access interests against confidentiality interests and must consider less restrictive alternatives such as redaction. Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 5.6, sealing in civil matters requires a statute, rule, or leave of court. Because Pittman's request was not narrowly tailored — it sought blanket sealing without identifying specific passages or providing a focused proposal — the court found it insufficient on preliminary review.
Disposition
The court issued a combined Order and Report and Recommendation:
- Order (immediately effective): Pittman's request to seal the case record is denied without prejudice. - Recommendation to the District Judge:
- The case caption be amended to reflect Jared Rardin (in his official capacity as Warden of FMC Rochester) as the sole respondent.
- The habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be denied.
- This action be dismissed.
- The IFP application (to proceed without prepaying fees) be denied as moot.
Because this is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge rather than a final ruling, it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party has 14 days after being served a copy to file specific written objections with the District Court, and the opposing party then has 14 days to respond.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.