Court Denies Bartoli Habeas Petition, FSA Credit Claim

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Eric Bartoli v. Colette Peters, Director, BOP, et al.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:24-cv-00276

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (17K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ERIC BARTOLI, )
)
Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 3:24-276
)
v. )
) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge
COLETTE PETERS, DIRECTOR, BOP, )
et al. )
)
)
Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court1 is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 8) filed by
Eric Bartoli (“Petitioner”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons below, the Court will deny the
petition.
I. Relevant Background
Petitioner is a federal prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), which
houses him at FCI Loretto. He is serving a sentence imposed following his convictions of
conspiracy, sale of unregistered securities, attempted income tax evasion, wire fraud, and mail
fraud. United States v. Bartoli, 5:03-cr-387 (N.D. Ohio).
Petitioner was originally sentenced on November 9, 2016, but his subsequent motion to
vacate the sentence was granted. On February 29, 2020, he was transferred to the custody of the
United States Marshals Service (“USMS”), and remained in USMS custody until February 10,
2022, when he was returned to BOP custody after resentencing. However, that new sentence was
subsequently vacated, and Petitioner was again transferred to the custody of the USMS for

1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(1), the parties voluntarily consented to have a United States
Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including entry of a final judgment.
resentencing from November 3, 2023, to December 15, 2023. He was then returned to BOP
custody.
Petitioner initiated the instant litigation by lodging a petition in this Court on November
20, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) This petition was subsequently filed. (ECF No. 8.) In the petition, Petitioner

challenges the way in which the BOP is calculating his federal sentence, contending that it has
refused to award him First Step Act (“FSA”) Earned Time Credits (“ETCs”) as required by law
for the time periods during which he was in the custody of the USMS.2 Petitioner also filed
supplements to his petition. (ECF Nos. 11, 15.) Respondents then filed an answer (ECF No. 16),
and Petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 20.)
The Petition is ripe for review.
II. Analysis
A. Legal Standard
In order to obtain habeas relief, Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that he “is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3).

Section 2241 confers habeas jurisdiction upon a federal prisoner’s custodial court to hear
challenges to BOP decisions that potentially affect the duration of his custody. See, e.g., Queen v.
Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 254 (3d Cir. 2008); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3d Cir. 1990);
see also Dababneh v. Warden Loretto FCI, 792 Fed. Appx. 149, 150 n.2 (3d Cir. 2019).
B. Petitioner’s Claim
Under the FSA, an eligible prisoner “who successfully completes evidence-based
recidivism reduction [(“EBRR”)]programming or productive activities [(“PAs”)], shall earn time

2 To the extent Petitioner also makes claims concerning telephone privileges, housing assignments, or commissary,
(ECF No. 11), such challenges, which do not affect the fact or duration of Petitioner’s prison sentence, may not be
entertained in this habeas action. See Viola v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 825 Fed. Appx. 63, 64 (3d Cir. 2020).
credits” towards his or her sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3632 (d)(4)(A). Petitioner asserts that the BOP
has improperly refused to award him ETCs for the periods of time when he was in the custody of
the USMS3 despite the fact that while he was in USMS custody, he engaged in “productive
activities,” namely, “the library, law library, church, recreation, working out, tutoring, and work.”

(ECF No. 20 at 7.)
Respondents argue that while Petitioner was in USMS custody, and not in BOP custody,
he was not “successfully participating” in BOP-recommended programming, and as a result, is not
entitled to ETCs for that time. (ECF No. 16 at 10-11.) Respondents are correct.
The relevant regulation provides, in pertinent part:
(c) Successful participation.

(1) An eligible inmate must be “successfully participating” in EBRR
Programs or PAs[4] to earn FSA Time Credits for those EBRR Programs
or PAs.

(2) “Successful participation” requires a determination by Bureau staff that
an eligible inmate has participated in the EBRR programs or PAs that the
Bureau has recommended based on the inmate’s individualized risk and
needs assessment, and has complied with the requirements of each particular
EBRR Program or PA.
…

(4) An eligible inmate, as described in paragraph (d) of this section, will
generally not be considered to be “successfully participating” in EBRR
Programs or PAs in situations including, but not limited to:

…

(iii) Temporary transfer to the custody of another Federal or non-
Federal government agency ( e.g., on state or Federal writ, transfer to
state custody for service of sentence, etc.). 28 C.F.R. § 523.41.

3 Petitioner did accrue time credits during his time in FCI Loretto. (ECF No. 16-1 at 3.)
4 The regulation defines a PA as “a group or individual activity that allows an inmate to remain productive and thereby
maintain or work toward achieving a minimum or low risk of recidivating.” 28 C.F.R. § 523.41 (b).
Pursuant to this regulation, an inmate on temporary transfer to another federal agency on a
federal writ, like Petitioner was when he was in USMS custody, is generally not considered to be
“successfully participating” in the approved programs.
Further, “successful participation” means participation in programming recommended by

the BOP based on the inmate’s individualized risk and needs assessment. Petitioner does not assert
that his purported productive activities while in USMS custody were recommended by the BOP.5
See Vinayak Patel v. Greene, Civil A. No. 3:25-2483, 2026 WL 907589 (M.D. Pa. April 2, 2026)
(finding the petitioner was not entitled to FSA time credits for the period when he was outside of
a BOP facility and thus not participating in BOP-approved programming). Finally, although
Petitioner asserts that the BOP regulations in this area conflict with the FSA, e.g., that the FSA
contains no language concerning a writ (ECF No. 20 at 6), he falls well short of demonstrating any
conflict, and at any rate, this argument is unpersuasive.
Accordingly, because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the ETCs he
was denied, he is not entitled to habeas relief.6

III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court will deny the petition.
An appropriate Order follows.

April 9, 2026 /s/ Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE
United States Magistrate Judge

5 In fact, as Respondents note, Petitioner has not provided any evidence that he “participated in necessary programming
to earn FSA time credits while he was in the custody of the Marshals Service for purposes of resentencing. . ..” (ECF
No. 16 at 11.)