Darryl L. Hawkins, Petitioner,
Louis W. Winn, Jr., Respondent.
BRUCE G. MACDONALD, Magistrate Judge.
Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Darryl W. Hawkins's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody ("Petition") (Doc. 1). Petitioner has filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition (Doc. 9). Respondent Winn has filed his Answer to Petition and Motion to Dismiss Petition ("Answer") (Doc. 18). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Answer (Doc. 24) and a Memorandum of Points and Facts in Support of Reply to Response ("Memorandum") (Doc. 25). Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Compel or in the Alternate Motion to Strike (Doc. 26) and a Request for Production of Documents to Respondent (Doc. 27). The United States Magistrate Judge has received the written consent of both parties, and presides over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Order 9/18/2013 (Doc. 34). For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge denies the Petition (Doc. 1), and denies as moot the Petitioner's Motion to Compel (Doc. 26) and Motion to Produce Documents (Doc. 27).
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary ("USP") in Tucson, Arizona. See Answer (Doc. 18), Decl. of Robert C. Jennings (Exh. 1) at ¶ 4, Attach. 1 at 2. He is serving a 180 month sentence from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. Id. at Attach. 1 at 1 ("Inmate Data Sheet"). Petitioner is projected to complete this sentence on September 28, 2016, via Good Conduct Time ("GCT") provided Petitioner earns all available GCT. Id. Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 22, 2013. See Petition (Doc. 1). Petitioner asserts that the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") incorrectly calculated the commencement date of his federal sentence and failed to properly credit time served against his federal conviction. Id. at 9. Petitioner requests a recalculation of his sentence credit and a subsequent release from federal custody. Id. at 10.
On January 15, 1992, Petitioner was paroled from a state sentence by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ("Parole Board"). See Answer (Doc. 18), Exh. 1, Attach. 6. At the time of his parole, Petitioner had an undischarged prison term of 9 years, 7 months, and 4 days. Id. On November 13, 1993, state authorities arrested Petitioner on various felony charges, including possession of a firearm. Id. at ¶ 5, Attach. 2 ("Sealed Presentence Report") at 2. Petitioner was placed in state custody pending a parole violation at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("PADOC") Graterford facility. Id. at ¶5, Attach. 3 (PADOC Moves Report). On October 13, 1994, Petitioner was "borrowed" by United States Marshals from the State of Pennsylvania's custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. See Answer (Doc. 18), Exh. 1, Attach. 4 ("USMS Prisoner Tracking System") at 2 ("WHCAP,  10/13/1994, GRATERFORD"). Petitioner pled guilty to the federal felony of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Id. at Attach. 5 at 1. On November 1, 1995, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sentenced Petitioner to 180 months imprisonment. Id. at 2. On November 9, 1995, Petitioner was returned to the primary custody of Pennsylvania. Id. at Attach 4 ("USMS Prisoner Tracking System") at 2 ("RL-WHCAP, 11/09/1995, RETURN TO SCI-GRATERFORD").
Based on this federal conviction, the Parole Board found that Petitioner violated the conditions of his state parole and recommitted him for the remainder of his undischarged term. See Answer (Doc. 18), Exh. 1, Attach. 6 ("Parole Board Recommitment Form"). The Parole Board determined that Petitioner was returned to state custody on November 1, 1995, following his federal conviction. Id. The Parole Board added the undischarged prison term of 9 years, 7 months, and 4 days to the return date of November 1, 1995 and concluded that Petitioner was to serve his state parole violator sentence until June 5, 2005. Id. Petitioner's federal sentence commenced on the day his state sentence expired, June 5, 2005. Id. at Attach. 8 ("Sentence Monitoring Computation Data") at 2. Petitioner received 718 days of credit towards his federal sentence for time served between his arrest date, November 13, 1993, and the day prior to his return to state custody, October 31, 1995. Id. Petitioner does not dispute that this time served was credited towards his federal sentence. See Petition (Doc. 1) at 9.
On January 23, 2013, while incarcerated at USP in Tucson, Arizona, Petitioner filed his Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. Id. at 1. Petitioner asserts that his federal sentence should have commenced the day it was imposed and that he has completed his federal sentence. Id. at 17. On May 15, 2013, Respondent filed an Answer to Petition and Motion to Dismiss. See Answer (Doc. 18).
A. Jurisdiction of the Court
"Federal courts are always under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, ' and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000), quoting FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990). In the case of a habeas petition, such jurisdiction is dependent upon a proper characterization of the petition.
"Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location or condition of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court." Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864. Therefore, this Court's jurisdiction depends upon a proper characterization of Petitioners's claims. Petitioner is challenging the manner, location or condition of the execution of his sentence. See e.g., Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d 349 (1st Cir. 1999) (section 2241 petition is appropriate vehicle to challenge the correctness of a jail-time credit determination, once administrative remedies have been exhausted). Such a challenge must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court. Petitioner being incarcerated at the USP Tucson, Arizona, when the Petition was filed, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter. Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1990).
B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated [28 U.S.C. § 2241] does not specifically require petitioners to exhaust direct appeals before filing petitions for habeas corpus. [Footnote omitted.] However, we require, as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.
Castro-Cortez v. INS,
239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds, Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30, 126 S.Ct. 2422, 165 L.Ed.2d 323 (2006). Petitioner first filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and then appealed through the BOP Administrative Remedy Program. See Petition (Doc. 1) at 2-3. Neither the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania nor Respondent have suggested Petitioner has failed to exhaust ...