FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR., District Judge.
The
The pro se petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. In the petition, the petitioner contends that the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") "miscalculated [his] day for day actual days as a pre-trial inmate."
The petitioner then filed a "Motion to Clarify Sentencing and Amount of Time Spent Under Federal Jurisdiction Before Sentencing and to Recommend that the Respondent Receive All Pre-trial Jail Credit Earned in Federal Jurisdiction." ECF No. 4. In that motion, the petitioner states that he "was sentenced to a term of 57 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release on [September 18, 2017] for Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Conspiracy[,] . . . [that he] was taken into [f]ederal [c]ustody on October 15, 2013 where he remained until sentencing on September 18, 2017[, and that he] spent 4 1/2 years in [f]ederal [c]ustody, under [f]ederal [j]urisdiction, as a pre-trial inmate before he was sentenced to a term of 57 months."
After filing a motion for extension of time to file an answer (ECF No. 19) that was granted by Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone (ECF No. 20), the respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 22 and 23. The respondent first argues that the petitioner did not administratively challenge the computation of his sentence; therefore, he cannot pursue his claims in this lawsuit. ECF No. 23 at 4-6. Second, the respondent argues that the BOP has broad discretion to compute federal prison sentences.
The petitioner then responded to the respondent's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 26. In that response, the petitioner requests that the Court respect the sentencing judge's words during sentencing, and requests the sentencing transcripts, alleging that the transcripts will show the miscalculation of time.
United States Magistrate Judge Mazzone entered a report and recommendation, in which he recommends that the respondent's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) be granted, the § 2241 petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice, and the petitioner's "Motion to Clarify Sentencing and Amount of Time Spent Under Federal Jurisdiction Before Sentencing and to Recommend That Defendant Receive All Pre-trial Credit Earned in Federal Jurisdiction" (ECF No. 4) be denied as moot. ECF No. 28 at 11. The magistrate judge informed the parties that if they objected to any portion of the report and recommendation, they were required to file written objections within 14 days after being served with copies of the report.
The petitioner filed objections after the petitioner was granted an extension to respond to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF Nos. 29 and 30). ECF No. 31.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a
Because the petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation, this Court reviews the magistrate judge's recommendation
For the reasons stated below, this Court adopts and affirms the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 28), and overrules the petitioner's objections (ECF No. 31). This Court further denies the petitioner's "Motion to Clarify Sentencing and Amount of Time Spent Under Federal Jurisdiction Before Sentencing and to Recommend That Defendant Receive All Pre-trial Credit Earned in Federal Jurisdiction" (ECF No. 4) as moot and petitioner's "Motion to Enter Sentencing Hearing" (ECF No. 32) as untimely.
In his objections, the petitioner first indicates that he has requested copies of his sentencing hearing transcripts, and that he cannot continue "forward" if his request is ignored.
After filing his objections, the petitioner also filed a "Motion to Enter Sentencing Hearing." ECF No. 32. This motion requests copies of the sentencing transcripts.
Upon
Second, the magistrate judge correctly found that because the petitioner was transferred to federal authorities pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus, California retained primary custody over the petitioner; and because petitioner cannot receive double credit, he is not entitled to further credit against his federal sentence before the date he completed his state sentence obligations, September 22, 2017.
For those reasons, the "Motion to Clarify Sentencing and Amount of Time Spent Under Federal Jurisdiction Before Sentencing and to Recommend That Defendant Receive All Pre-trial Credit Earned in Federal Jurisdiction" (ECF No. 4) is denied as moot.
For the reasons discussed above, the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 28) is hereby AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and the petitioner's objections (ECF NO. 31) are OVERRULED. Further, petitioner's "Motion to Clarify Sentencing and Amount of Time Spent Under Federal Jurisdiction Before Sentencing and to Recommend That Defendant Receive All Pre-trial Credit Earned in Federal Jurisdiction" (ECF No. 4) is DENIED AS MOOT. Petitioner's "Motion to Enter Sentencing Hearing" (ECF No. 32), filed on January 31, 2019 with his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, is DENIED AS UNTIMELY.
It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
Should the petitioner choose to appeal the judgment of this Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on the issues to which objection was made, he is ADVISED that he must file a notice of appeal with the Clerk of this Court within 60 days after the date of the entry of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum opinion and order to the