Filed: Jun. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge. AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant's "Motion for Reconsideration" (Doc. No. 187) filed in the above captioned matter on June 18, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED. Notwithstanding the fact that the Court has on numerous occasions informed Defendant that it lacks authority to determine the issue of prior custody credit and although the Court has advised that such authority lies with the Bureau of Priso
Summary: ORDER ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge. AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant's "Motion for Reconsideration" (Doc. No. 187) filed in the above captioned matter on June 18, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED. Notwithstanding the fact that the Court has on numerous occasions informed Defendant that it lacks authority to determine the issue of prior custody credit and although the Court has advised that such authority lies with the Bureau of Prison..
More
ORDER
ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant's "Motion for Reconsideration" (Doc. No. 187) filed in the above captioned matter on June 18, 2012,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Court has on numerous occasions informed Defendant that it lacks authority to determine the issue of prior custody credit and although the Court has advised that such authority lies with the Bureau of Prisons, see United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992), Defendant seeks for this Court to reconsider its May 31, 2012, Order, denying his motion to award him credit for the time he spent detained between May 24, 2007, and April 18, 2008. Defendant alleges that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and that this matter is thus properly before this Court. Defendant's contention is misplaced.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that the issue of whether Defendant is entitled to prior custody credit for the time he spent detained in the Western District of Pennsylvania while awaiting his sentence is a matter which relates to the execution, and not the validity of his sentence. See United States v. Grimes, 641 F.2d 96, 99 (3d Cir. 1981). It is well-established that issues regarding the execution of a defendant's sentence are properly raised in a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Grimes, 641 F.2d at 99; see also Coady V. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 1981). Section 2241 petitions are required to be brought in the district where the defendant is confined. See Jennings v. Holt, 326 Fed. Appx. 628, 630 (3d Cir. 2009).
Here, the Defendant is housed in the Central District of California and already has filed a Section 2241 petition with the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which was dismissed with prejudice on March 2, 2012. See Case No. 11-cv-04404-GW (Doc. No. 13). The Defendant's motion urges this Court to reevaluate an issue that was considered and rejected by United States District Court Judge George H. Wu in the Central District of California.1 As such, this Court is not required and is unwilling to reconsider an issue that already has been disposed of by another District Court.2 See United States v. Stackpole, 406 Fed. Appx. 586, 587 (3d Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.3
