Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06319/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06319-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMAND MARTIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

U. S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-6319 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

Case 1:04-cv-06319-AWI-WMW Document 13 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 4
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 2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner states in his petition that he is serving a 86 month sentence in the Taft

Correctional Institution. He explains that he received this sentence in 2002 in the District of

Louisiana after being convicted of conspiring to possess cocaine hydrochloride with intent to

distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the

validity or constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a petitioner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that

sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

See, e.g., Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v.

Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30

n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991); United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v.

Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3rd Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185,

186-87 (8th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). A

petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must file the

petition in the judicial district of the petitioner's custodian. Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. 

In this case, Petitioner is challenging the manner of execution of his sentence because

he seeking credit to his federal sentence for statutory good time for the time he has been

incarcerated. See U.S. v. Espinoza, 866 F.2d 1067, 1070 (9th Cir.1988). In addition, the

Petitioner is confined at Taft Correction Institution which is located within the jurisdiction of

this Court. See U.S. v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1984). Thus, his petition is

proper under § 2241. 

Petitioner contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is incorrectly calculating his

good time credits and asks this court to order the BOP to change its method of calculation. 

Case 1:04-cv-06319-AWI-WMW Document 13 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 4
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 3

Respondent disputes this contention.

As Respondent explains, the awarding of good time credits for federal prisoners is

governed by 18 U.S.C. Section 3624(b)(1). That section states that a prisoner who is serving

a sentence of more than one year, but less than life, “may receive up to fifty-four days at the

end of each year of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year

of the term,” subject to the BOP’s determination that “during that year, the prisoner has

displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations. 18 U.S.C. §

3624(b)(1).

The credit towards the prisoner’s sentence is calculated at the end of each year. 

However, as Respondent indicates, when the prisoner approaches the end of his sentence, the

calculation must be made before the end of the year and must be prorated. Section 3624

specifies that “credit for the last year of portion of a year of the term of imprisonment shall

be prorated and credited within the last six weeks of the sentence.” The question that arises

in this situation is whether the phrase “term of imprisonment” means the length of the actual

sentence that was imposed by the district court or the amount of time that the prisoner

actually serves. The BOP has implemented a regulation that adopts the amount of time

actually served by a prisoner as the basis for the proration. 28 C.F.R. § 523.20.

Petitioner argues that his good time credits should be based, not on the number of

days actually served but on the number of days to which he is sentenced. Petitioner

estimates that the BOP’s method of calculating good time credits has deprived him of

approximately 7 days worth of credit each year.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has rejected the exact argument made by

Petitioner in Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9 Cir. 2001). The court found that th

the BOT regulation was entitled to full deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), that section 3624(b) is ambiguous,

that the legislative history of the section does not remove that ambiguity, and that the BOP

Case 1:04-cv-06319-AWI-WMW Document 13 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

regulation is “based on a permissible construction of the statute.” 467 U.S. at 843; 272 F.3d

at 1269-71. Accordingly, this petition provides no basis for habeas corpus relief and must be

denied.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition for writ

of habeas corpus be DENIED and that judgment be entered for Respondent.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06319-AWI-WMW Document 13 Filed 01/23/07 Page 4 of 4