Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06891/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06891-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JESSICA LYNN CARVER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 18-06891 EJD (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a federal prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in 

Dublin, California, filed in pro se a “Request for Credit of Home Monitoring System 

Time,” which would advance her release date by 10 months, in the Western District of 

Washington. (Docket No. 1.) The matter was construed as a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and transferred to this Court. (Docket No. 3.) 

Because the petition was silent with respect to the exhaustion of administrative 

remedies, the Court directed Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the instant petition. 

(Docket No. 9.) Petitioner has filed a response, providing copies of documents purporting 

to show that she exhausted administrative remedies in a timely manner. (Docket No. 10.) 

/// 

Case 5:18-cv-06891-EJD Document 11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 Review of the execution of a federal sentence is properly brought as a petition under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) 

(presentence time credit claim). This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus from a person “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). This power extends to reviewing challenges to 

the Board of Parole’s decisions regarding execution of federal criminal sentences, 

including calculation of release date. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th 

Cir. 2000). The court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to 

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that 

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary 

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

B. Legal Claims 

Petitioner seeks modification of her release date from January 26, 2021, to March 

26, 2020. (Pet. at 1.) Petitioner claims that if the Court takes into account prior custody 

credit, she would be entitled to the earlier release date. (Id. at 2.) Liberally construed, this 

claim is cognizable and merits an answer from Respondent. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all 

attachments thereto on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the United States Attorney 

for the Northern District of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on 

Petitioner. 

Case 5:18-cv-06891-EJD Document 11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 

days of the issuance of this order, an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus 

should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy 

of all portions of Petitioner’s federal criminal record that are relevant to a determination of 

the issues presented by the petition. 

 If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, she shall do so by filing a traverse 

with the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the 

answer. 

 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 

answer. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on 

Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of 

receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner a 

reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded 

that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true 

copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all 

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of 

Change of Address.” She must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

5. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time 

will be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order to Show Cause 

PRO-SE\EJD\HC.18\06891Carver.2241_osc 

2/20/2020

Case 5:18-cv-06891-EJD Document 11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3