Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00004/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00004-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

RENE G. LOPEZ, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06 CV 0004 LJO WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 11]

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. Pending before the court is

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

LEGAL STANDARD

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

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal

prisoner can show he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner’s claims are proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

and not 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because they concern the manner, location, or conditions of the

execution of petitioner’s sentence and not the fact of petitioner’s conviction or sentence. Tucker

Case 1:06-cv-00004-LJO-WMW Document 12 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 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

2

v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that a challenge to the execution of a

sentence is "maintainable only in a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241"); Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 549 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam)

(allowing a federal prisoner to use § 2241 to challenge the BOP's restitution policies).

Further, because Petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence at United States

Prison at Atwater and Atwater is within the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, the

court has jurisdiction over this petition. See, Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir.

1990). 

DISCUSSION

In this petition, Petitioner contends that the BOP has incorrectly calculated the amount of

jail time credit he should receive, failing to give him credit for ten in which he was out on bail. 

Respondent moves to dismiss this petition on the ground that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. Petitioner has not responded to the motion.

Before a petitioner may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, the petitioner must exhaust federal administrative remedies. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503

U.S. 140, 144-45, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 1086-87 (1992); Western Radio Services Co. v. Espay, 79

F.3d 896, 899 (9 Cir. 1996); Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). Federal

th

prisons have a specific procedure in place by which a petitioner can present his claims to the

prison officials. See Martinez, 804 F.2d at 571 (describing procedure for bringing claims to

prison administration); 28 C.R.R. § 542.10 - 19.

In this case, Respondent argues that because Petitioner has not exhausted his

administrative remedies, the court should dismiss the petition. Respondent stresses that because

of the lack of administrative procedures, the court has no record on which to decide the merits of

Petitioner’s claim. Respondent explains that requiring Petitioner to exhaust his administrative

remedies by presenting his claim to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) will allow the BOP to

recalculate his credits and determine whether Petitioner is in fact due the credits he claims. If the

BOP finds that Petitioner is due these credits, it can make the correction in Petitioner’s sentence

without any further involvement of the court. If the BOP finds that Petitioner is not due the

Case 1:06-cv-00004-LJO-WMW Document 12 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 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

3

credits, Petitioner will still have the option of seeking a remedy in this court.

The court finds Respondent’s arguments to be meritorious and concludes that this petition

should be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to return to this court if he does not

receive the relief he seeks from the BOP.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED;

2) this petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice;

3) the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

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 15, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00004-LJO-WMW Document 12 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 3