# Brown v. Sproul

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 1, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10920465

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** May 1, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10920465

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JAQUAN BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 25-CV-00300-SPM

DANIEL SPROUL,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

McGLYNN, District Judge:
Petitioner Jaquan Brown, an inmate currently incarcerated at the United
States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois, brings the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 (Doc. 1). The case is now before the Court for
a preliminary review of the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 1(b) gives this Court
the authority to apply these Rules to other habeas corpus cases.
On March 28, 2023, Brown pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Hobbs Act
Robbery (Count 1), Hobbs Act Robbery (Count 2), Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery
(Count 6), unlawful Use, Carry, and Brandishing a Firearm During and in Relation
to a Crime of Violence (Count 3) and being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm (Count
8)2 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 924(c), 922(g)(1), 1951, and 1952. See United

1 The Court notes that Petitioner did not provide a signature on his Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 form in accordance with Rule 2(c)(5) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. (See Doc. 1, p. 9). He did, however, sign and
date additional page he submitted with the form. (See id., p. 11).
2 The Court notes that the United States District Court for the Middle District for Tennessee
erred on page 2 of Document 153, where it states that being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm charge
States v. Jaquan Brown, 3:22-cr-00049-3 (M.D. Tenn. 2023) (Docs. 14, 153). On
August 24, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
sentenced him to a total of 120 months of imprisonment: 36 months of imprisonment
on Counts 1,2,6, and 8,3 to run concurrently with each other, and 84 months on Count

3 to run consecutively with the other counts. See id. (Doc. 153). Brown’s projected
release date is September 5, 2034. See Find an inmate., FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS,
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ [https://perma.cc/8F6X-LWUD] (last visited May 1,
2025) (search for BOP Register No. 19412-033).
In his Petition, Brown argues that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) failed to give
him credit for the time he served in state custody after being sentenced for the above

federal offenses. (Doc. 1, p. 10). He argues that there is “ambiguity between his two
sentences in state and federal court and that the entire record must be examined[.]”
(Id.). Brown thus raises one issue: whether or not his time served in state custody
was appropriately applied to his current sentence of imprisonment. (See id., p. 10).
However, he expressly indicates that he has not appealed the issue to Warden Daniel
Sproul at USP Marion or sought any other administrative relief, because doing so
would be “futile.” (Id., p. 11). He claims that exhausting administrative relief would

be pointless because “no administrative remedies are granted based on time credits
at the facility he is housed” and because there are allegedly a large number of pending
motions in the Southern District of Illinois. (Id.).

was Count 7—in fact, it was Count 8 of the original indictment. See United States v. Jaquan Brown,
3:22-cr-00049-3 (M.D. Tenn. 2023) (Docs. 14, 153).
3 See supra note 1.
The Seventh Circuit has expressly held that “[a] district court has no power to
give credit for time served; that authority rests solely with the BOP.” See Kane v.
Zuercher, 344 F. App’x 267, 268 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Wilson, 503
U.S. 329, 334–35 (1992); 18 U.S.C. § 3585; United States v. McGee, 60 F.3d 1266, 1272

(7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Pardue, 363 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2004)). They have
also held that Section 2241 petitioners are required to exhaust administrative
remedies before seeking relief in district court. Ihmoud v. Jett, 272 F. App’x 525, 526
(7th Cir. 2008) (citing Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d 602, 604 (7th Cir. 2004); Dale
v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2004); McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 887 (7th
Cir. 1999)). As discussed supra, Brown expressly states that he did not make any

effort to exhaust administrative remedies with BOP prior to filing the instant
Petition. (See Doc. 1). Brown’s failure to do so is controlling here, and compels this
Court to dismiss his Petition.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein, Jaquan Brown’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 1, 2025

s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10920465. Public record. Not legal advice.