Harleman v. Warden, 2:24-cv-02176

Paul Henri Marie Harleman is a federal prisoner serving a 64-month sentence for wire fraud and money laundering at FDC SeaTac.
He filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed to apply First Step Act (FSA) time credits allegedly earned while on holdover status in Hawaii.
A previous similar habeas petition by Harleman was dismissed as unripe because any FSA credits recognized would not affect his immediate or imminent release.
In the current petition, Harleman again asserts the BOP refuses to apply 60–70 days of earned FSA time credits.
Respondent argues the claim remains unripe since Harleman is classified as a "medium" recidivism risk and is not presently eligible to have credits applied toward early release.
The court previously provided Harleman an opportunity to amend his petition to address proper grounds and procedures, but he did not do so.

Issue	Harleman's Argument	Warden/BOP's Argument	Held
Ripeness of FSA Credits Claim	BOP should recognize and apply extra FSA credits earned in holdover.	Harleman is not eligible for application of FSA credits due to recidivism risk assessment; claim not ripe.	Claim is unripe for adjudication; dismissed.
Eligibility for FSA Time Credits Application	He is entitled to 60-70 additional FSA credits for time as holdover.	No current eligibility due to "medium" risk status; credits cannot affect release now.	Relief would not affect custody status; dismissed.
Amendment of Petition to Add New Grounds	Raised new error about risk assessment in response brief.	Only original ground properly before court; proper procedures not followed; motion to strike.	New grounds stricken; only original claim considered.
Habeas Relief under FSA Before Immediate Release Possible	Should get relief now for future benefit.	No habeas claim unless application of credits would result in immediate/imminent release.	No relief until claim ripe and affects release.

Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (federal courts require actual, ongoing cases or controversies—ripeness required)
Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296 (claims not ripe if based on contingent future events)
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (ripeness doctrine prevents courts from premature adjudication of disputes over administrative policies)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (failure to object to a magistrate's report waives appellate review)
Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844 (failure to object can result in waiver for appeal)