challenging content of 11 inaccurate pre-sentence report used to deny parole
How later courts described this case
- challenging content of 11 inaccurate pre-sentence report used to deny parole
- contending time spent in state custody should be credited toward federal custody
- asserting petitioner should be housed at a community treatment center
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JAMES PAPAZIAN, No. 1:24-cv-00851-SKO (HC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND DISMISSING PETITION
13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
14 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
WARDEN, USP-ATWATER, TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE
15 CASE
Respondent.
16
17
18 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for
19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties having consented to the exercise
20 of magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the matter was reassigned to
21 the undersigned for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. (Docs. 6, 8, 9.)
22 On July 24, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1.) On
23 January 22, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss and response to the petition. (Doc. 18.)
24 Petitioner did not timely file an opposition to the motion.
25 For reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the
26 petition with prejudice.
27 /////
28 /////
1 DISCUSSION
2 I. Background
3 A. Relevant Court Proceedings
4 On October 2, 2012, Petitioner was convicted in the State of Nebraska for burglary and
5 sentenced to 10 years in state prison. (Doc. 18-1 at 17, 19.) While serving his state sentence,
6 Petitioner suffered two additional convictions, both for assault by a confined person. (Id.) He was
7 sentenced to terms of one year to be served consecutively to his burglary sentence. (Id.)
8 While serving his state sentence, on January 17, 2018, Petitioner was indicted in the
9 United States District Court for the District of Nevada for knowingly and intentionally conspiring
10 to distribute, with intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. See Case No.
11 4:18CR3008 (D. Neb. 2018).
12 On January 24, 2018, Petitioner was borrowed from state authorities pursuant to a federal
13 writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. (Doc. 18-1 at 11.)
14 On May 10, 2018, Petitioner was paroled from his state obligations and turned over to
15 federal authorities. (Doc. 18-1 at 14, 17.)
16 On August 6, 2019, Petitioner was sentenced in the Nebraska District Court to a term of
17 292 months, which he is now serving. (Doc. 18-1 at 23-24.)
18 B. Federal Sentence Calculation
19 The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) calculated Petitioner’s sentence based on the 292-month
20 term of imprisonment. The sentence commenced on August 6, 2019, and Petitioner was credited
21 with prior custody credits from May 11, 2018, to August 5, 2019. (Doc. 18-1 at 43.) He was not
22 credited for the approximately 8-month period of time spent in state custody from September 3,
23 2017, to May 10, 2018, as that time was credited against his state sentences.
24 II. Jurisdiction
25 Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the
26 United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the
27 validity or constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus
28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a petitioner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that
1 sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See,
2 e.g., Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990); Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d
3 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991);
4 United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir. 1991). To receive relief under 28 U.S.C. §
5 2241, a petitioner in federal custody must show that his sentence is being executed in an illegal,
6 but not necessarily unconstitutional, manner. See, e.g., Clark v. Floyd, 80 F.3d 371, 372, 374 (9th
7 Cir. 1995) (contending time spent in state custody should be credited toward federal custody);
8 Jalili, 925 F.2d at 893-94 (asserting petitioner should be housed at a community treatment center);
9 Barden, 921 F.2d at 479 (arguing Bureau of Prisons erred in determining whether petitioner could
10 receive credit for time spent in state custody); Brown, 610 F.2d at 677 (challenging content of
11 inaccurate pre-sentence report used to deny parole).
12 Petitioner alleges he is being unlawfully denied credit against his federal sentence for time
13 served in state custody between September 3, 2017, to May 10, 2018. Thus, Petitioner is
14 challenging the execution of his sentence rather than its imposition, and the claim is proper under
15 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
16 A petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must file
17 the petition in the judicial district of the petitioner's custodian. Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. Venue is
18 therefore proper, since Petitioner is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater,
19 California, and the institution is located within the jurisdiction of this Court. 28 U.S.C. §§
20 2254(a); 2241(d).
21 III. Commencement of Federal Sentence
22 The authority to compute a federal prisoner’s sentence is delegated to the Attorney
23 General, who exercises it through the Bureau of Prisons. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329,
24 334-35 (1992); Allen v. Crabtree, 153 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 1998), cert denied, 525 U.S.
25 1091 (1999). “Computing a federal sentence requires two separate determinations: first, when the
26 sentence commences; and, second, to what extent the defendant in question may receive credit for
27 any time already spent in custody.” United States v. Smith, 812 F.Supp 368, 370 (E.D.N.Y.
28 1993); Jimenez v. Warden, FDIC, Fort Devens, Mass., 147 F.Supp.2d 24, 27 (D.Mass.2001);
1 Chambers v. Holland, 920 F.Supp. 618, 621 (M.D.Pa. 1996), affirmed by, 100 F.3d 946 (3rd Cir.
2 1996). A federal sentence commences “on the date the defendant is received in custody. . . to
3 commence service of sentence at the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be
4 served.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a); Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1369 (9th Cir. 1991). In this
5 case, Petitioner’s federal sentence commenced on August 6, 2019, when he was sentenced in the
6 Nebraska District Court and taken into federal custody.
7 Title 18 U.S.C. § 3585 further provides, inter alia, that “[a] defendant be given credit for
8 any time spent in official detention prior to the date a sentence commences . . . that has not been
9 credited against another sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (emphasis added). Respondent
10 acknowledges that Petitioner was entitled to and received credit for the time period between May
11 10, 2018, the date of Petitioner’s parole from state custody, to August 5, 2019, the date prior to
12 his sentencing date, as this was time Petitioner spent in custody that was “not credited against
13 another sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
14 As to the period at issue here, September 3, 2017, to May 10, 2018, Respondent correctly
15 states that Petitioner is not entitled to any credit because this time has already been credited
16 toward a state sentence. Specifically, Petitioner served this time in jail for his state conviction of
17 assault on a confined person. Since Petitioner was credited with this time against his state
18 sentence, he is not entitled to any credit against his federal sentence, which would in effect be
19 double credits in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329,
20 337; Boniface v. Carlson, 856 F.2d 1434, 1436 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (concluding that
21 “[s]ince the State of Florida gave [petitioner] credit on his state sentence for the period of time he
22 was denied release [from state custody], he is not entitled to credit against his federal sentence for
23 the same period of time”); United States v. LaBeille-Soto, 163 F.3d 93, 99 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[A]
24 defendant has no right to credit on his federal sentence for time that has been credited against his
25 prior state sentence.”).
26 Additionally, it is well established that the sovereign that first acquires custody of a
27 defendant in a criminal case “establishes its primary jurisdiction and may give effect to its
28 sentence before other sovereigns may do so.” Johnson v. Gill, 883 F.3d 756, 764-65 (9th Cir.
1 2018). That sovereign “determines whether to retain or surrender that custody.” Binford v.
2 United States, 436 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 2006). Therefore, as the State of Nebraska had
3 custody of Petitioner first, it decided whether to retain him until his state sentences were
4 exhausted. Petitioner was not in federal custody until state authorities paroled him from his state
5 obligations. As a result, Petitioner’s federal sentence did not begin “until he was finally received
6 into federal custody . . ., after completing his state sentence.” Id. at 1256.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition must be dismissed.
8 ORDER
9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
10 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED;
11 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
12 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED enter judgment and close the case.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 Dated: July 3, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28