Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

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

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Joseph R. Vigil v. Warden J. Wadas, FCI Terre Haute

District Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00361

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (42.8K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney

Civil Action No. 25-cv-00361-CNS

JOSEPH R. VIGIL,

Applicant,

v.

WARDEN J. WADAS, FCI Terre Haute,

Respondent.

ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS                   

       I.   SUMMARY FOR PRO SE APPLICANT                         

You have filed a writ for habeas corpus. The Court denies it. Fundamentally, the
First Step Act requires that any time credits, even if they are earned, can only be applied
if an individual such as yourself is not at a high risk of recidivism. You do not dispute that
your recidivism risk rate is high. Thus, application of your time credits under the First Step
Act is not proper.

II. DISCUSSION

Applicant Joseph R. Vigil is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP), currently incarcerated at Terre Haute Federal Correctional Institution (FCI
Terre Haute) in Terre Haute, Indiana. On February 12, 2025, he filed pro se an Amended
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the Amended
Application). ECF No. 4. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 6.

1

The Court must construe the Amended Application and other papers filed by Mr.
Vigil liberally because he is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972) (per curiam); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See id. at 1110.

After reviewing the record in this case, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that the
Amended Application should be denied and the case dismissed.

A. Background

At the time Mr. Vigil initiated this action, he was incarcerated at the Englewood
Federal Correctional Institution (FDC Englewood) in Littleton, Colorado. In his Amended
Application, Mr. Vigil argues that the BOP has wrongfully denied him time credits under
the First Step Act (FSA), because he was not awarded time credit for activities that he
completed after he was sentenced but before he arrived at his designated facility. ECF
No. 4 at 2, 4; ECF No. 5 at 1.

According to Mr. Vigil, the BOP’s current policy–set forth in Program Statement

5410.01, First Step Act of 2018-Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3632 (d)(4)–allows inmates to earn FSA time credits for their participation in qualified
programming only after they have arrived at their designated facility. ECF No. 5 at 1. Mr.
Vigil argues that this policy improperly denies inmates the ability to earn FSA time credits
during the period after they are sentenced but before they are transferred to their
designated facility, and he argues that several federal courts have rejected the BOP’s
reliance on Program Statement 5410.01 to deny inmates FSA time credits during that
period. ECF No. 5 at 1. Mr. Vigil seeks an order requiring the BOP to calculate his FSA

                       2                                         

time credits as of his sentencing date. Id.; ECF No. 4 at 4.

On June 10, 2025, Respondent was ordered to show cause why the habeas
application should not be granted. ECF No. 20. After receiving two extensions of time,
Respondent filed a Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause (Response) on July

31, 2025. ECF 33. First, Respondent argues that the Amended Application should be
denied because Mr. Vigil has not asserted a proper habeas claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because, even if successful, his claim would not necessarily reduce the length of his
confinement. ECF No. 33. Second, Respondent argues that even if Mr. Vigil’s claim can
be brought in a habeas proceeding, the BOP properly calculated when Mr. Vigil began
earning FSA time credits. Id. Mr. Vigil did not file a reply to the Response despite being given an opportunity to
do so. See ECF No. 31.

B. Analysis

“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the

legality of that custody, and the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from
illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Thus, an application for
a writ of habeas corpus “challenges the fact or duration of . . . confinement and seeks
immediate release or a shortened period of confinement.” Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677
F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012); see also McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d
809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (“A habeas corpus proceeding attacks the fact or duration of a
prisoner’s confinement and seeks the remedy of immediate release or a shortened
period of confinement.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                       3                                         

The FSA provides in relevant part that an eligible prisoner “who successfully
completes evidence-based recidivism reduction (EBRR) programming or productive
activities, shall earn time credits” that “shall be applied toward time in prerelease custody
or supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632 (d)(4)(A), (C). To administer time credits under

the FSA, the BOP must (1) determine each inmate’s risk of recidivism and categorize
the risk as minimum, low, medium, or high; (2) assess and determine each inmate’s risk
of violent or serious misconduct; (3) determine the type and amount of EBRR
programming that is appropriate for each inmate; (4) periodically reassess each inmate’s
risk of recidivism; (5) reassign the inmate to appropriate EBRR programs and productive
activities (PAs) based on the reassessment; (6) determine when to provide incentives
and rewards for successful participation in EBRR programs and PAs; and (7) determine
when the inmate is ready for transfer to pre-release custody or supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632 (a)(1)–(7).

An eligible inmate “shall earn 10 days of time credits for every 30 days of

successful participation in [EBBR] programming or [PAs].” 18 U.S.C. § 3632 (d)(4)(A)(i).
An inmate “shall earn an additional 5 days of time credits for every 30 days of successful
participation in [EBRR] programming or [PAs]” if the BOP determines the inmate is “at a
minimum or low risk for recidivating” and “has not increased their risk of recidivism” over
“2 consecutive assessments.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632 (d)(4)(A)(ii). FSA time credits may be
applied to additional time in prerelease custody or placement on supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632 (d)(4)(C).

Under the First Step Act, earning time credits from participating in EBRR

                      4                                          

programs is separate and distinct from having the time credits applied to a prisoner’s
time in prerelease custody or supervised release. See 28 C.F.R. § 523.44. Application
of earned FSA time credits is not automatic. Among other things, the inmate must have
“shown through the periodic risk reassessments a demonstrated recidivism risk

reduction or ha[ve] maintained a minimum or low recidivism risk, during the prisoner’s
term of imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624 (g)(1)(B). The BOP uses the Prisoner
Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN) to categorize each
inmate’s risk of recidivism. Inmates with high or medium PATTERN scores also may
petition the warden to have their time credits applied. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624 (g)(1)(D)(i)(II). Such a petition must show (1) the inmate would not be a danger to
society if transferred to prerelease custody or supervised release; (2) the inmate has
made a good faith effort to lower their recidivism risk level; and (3) the inmate is unlikely
to recidivate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624 (g)(1)(D)(i)(II).

According to Respondent, Mr. Vigil has earned 106 days of FSA time credits;

however, those time credits are not being applied because he remains at a high risk of
recidivism. See Lovellette Decl., ECF No. 33-1 at ¶ 9. Mr. Vigil does not dispute that his
recidivism level is assessed as high, and he does not allege that he has successfully
petitioned the warden to have the time credits applied.

Thus, Mr. Vigil fails to present any reasoned argument that his rights were violated
in any way with respect to his time credits under the FSA.

                      5                                          
                     lll.     CONCLUSION 

Consistent with the above analysis, Mr. Vigil is not entitled to relief in this action.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 4, is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
Dated this 13th day of March 2026.
BY TH Y URT:

                                  Parlotte fe Sugeney 
                                 United States    District  Judge