21 Apr A Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Litigants (and Everyone)
A handful of judges have started including a plain language summary in cases involving pro se litigants. Why shouldn't they always do it?
A handful of judges have started including a plain language summary in cases involving pro se litigants. Why shouldn't they always do it?
Most of us know about the First Step Act time-credits program, but the FSA also requires that the BOP award prisoners other incentives too.
Litigating against the BOP in a First Step Act case is kind of like trying to hit a moving piñata blindfolded. Yufenyuy v. Warden shows why.
A bill in Massachusetts would allow prisoners to earn time off their sentence by donating bone marrow or an organ. It's kind of gross.
A federal prisoner wrote a letter to a judge to "keep [the judge] posted on [his] progress in prison. The judge's response? Motion denied.
Courts can't order the BOP to award partial eligibility for FSA Time Credits. But that doesn't mean the BOP can't do it anyway.
Implementation of First Step Act Time credits by the BOP has been a mess, but some courts still treat everything it says as true.
Last Friday, the BOP published a Program Statement that clears up a lot of the confusion around FSA Time Credits. Why did it take so long?
The BOP announced its 18-month FSA time credits rule roughly two months ago. It has already faced and failed its first legal test.
Lallave v. Martinez is a court case on FSA time credits in which a federal judge does something they almost never do: admits his mistake.