United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE D. THOMAS FERRARO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in Federal Custody (“Petition”) brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) At the time the
Petition was filed, Petitioner Stephen P. Garcia
(“Petitioner”) incarcerated at the Federal
Correction Institution in Safford, Arizona in service of an
84-month sentence with a 60-month terms of supervised release
for Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and an 18-month
sentence with a 36-month term of supervised release for
Escape from Custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).
(Doc. 14 at Ex. A.) Petitioner contends that he should be
given some credit for time he spent incarcerated in Mexico
(while he was on escape status). (Doc. 1 at 4; Doc. 9 at p.
1.) The Petition is fully briefed and all parties have
consented to a decision being rendered by a United States
Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 14, 18.) As more fully set forth
below, the Petition will be dismissed.
February 1, 1997, Petitioner was arrested by Federal Drug
Enforcement Administration officers on drug charges. (Doc. 14
at Ex. A ¶ 6.) On February 26, 1997, Petitioner was
released on bond. Id. On August 29, 1997, Petitioner
was sentenced by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California to 84-months in prison
followed by a 60-month term of supervised release for
Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Id. at ¶
7. On October 21, 1997, Petitioner reported to the prison
camp at the United States Penitentiary in Lompac, California.
Id. at ¶ 8. On December 30, 1997, he was
transferred to the Taft Correctional Institution
(“Taft”) in Taft, California. Id. Almost
one (1) year later, on December 6, 1998, Petitioner escaped
from Taft. Id. at ¶ 9.
years later, on April 9, 2013, Petitioner was arrested by the
United States Marshals Service on escape charges.
Id. at ¶ 10. On December 8, 2014, Petitioner
was sentenced by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California to 18-months imprisonment
followed by a 36-month term of supervised release for Escape
from Custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).
Id. at ¶ 11. The sentencing court addressed
whether Petitioner would be given credit for the time period
that he claimed he was in a Mexican jail after he escaped
from Taft stating:
You know, I can't - it's up to the Bureau of Prisons
whether they give, Mr. Garcia - whether they give you any
credit at all for the time in custody. They probably have the
resources to be able to actually check with the Mexican
official to verify what had occurred. And if the Bureau of
Prisons chooses to give you some credits, then that's up
(Doc. 14 at Ex. B at p. 13.) The Bureau of Prisons computed
Petitioner's aggregate sentence to be 102 months and
currently projects that he will satisfy his aggregate
sentence on August 12, 2018. Id. at Ex. A at
explained below, the Court determines that the Petition must
be dismissed. To start, Petitioner has failed to comply with
an order of the Court and dismissal is proper on this basis.
On February 7, 2017, United States District Judge Jennifer G.
Zipps issued an order authorizing service of the Petition and
directing that Respondent file an answer. (Doc. 9.) This
order warned Petitioner that failing to file and serve a
notice of change of address during the course of this matter
could result in dismissal of his Petition without further
notice. Id. at pp. 1-2. As mentioned above, at the
time Petitioner filed his Petition he was serving his
sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Safford,
Arizona. (Doc. 1.) As of the date of this Order, however,
Petitioner is serving his sentence at a Residential Reentry
Management field office in Sacramento, California. See
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. Petitioner did not file
a notice of change of address with the Clerk of the Court as
required by the Court's February 7th order.
See Dkt. Accordingly, dismissal of this action is
proper for Petitioner's failure to comply with the
Court's February 7th order.
has also failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and
dismissal is proper on this basis. As explained by
Respondent, to facilitate inmate complaints the Bureau of
Prisons operates the Administrative Remedy Program. (Doc. 14
at p. 5.) The Administrative Remedy Program is designed to
allow an inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to
any aspect of his or her confinement. See 28 C.F.R.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has made
it clear that a federal prisoner must exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition.
Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570 (9th
Cir. 1986). To properly exhaust available administrative
remedies, a petitioner must complete all stages of
administrative review and comply with all of the agency's
deadlines and applicable rules. Woodford v. Hgo, 548
U.S. 81, 89 (2006). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that
when a prisoner files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
without exhausting his available administrative remedies, the
court should dismiss the petition. Martinez, 804
F.2d at 571.
as laid out by Respondent, the Administrative Remedy Program
contains four (4) levels of review. (Doc. 14 at p. 5.) Based
up records submitted by Respondent, the Court determines that
Petitioner failed to complete all four levels of review.
Id. at pp. 10-11. Specifically, Petitioner failed to
file an appeal with the Central Office in proper form despite
being provided repeated opportunities to do so. Id.
at Ex. A at ¶¶ 19-22. Petitioner has failed to
exhaust his available administrative remedies. Additionally,
Respondent represents that the Bureau of Prisons has
contacted the Mexican authorities to determine if Petitioner
spent time in official detention in Mexico that is creditable
to his current sentence. (Doc. 14 at p. 9.)
has failed to comply with an order of the Court and has also
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The ...