Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01289/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01289-0/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 (federal)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 08CV1044

CIVIL CASE NO. 08CV1289

CRIM CASE NO. 00CR1502

ORDER

 v.

MIGUEL CASTILLO,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

On May 21, 2008, Defendant Castillo filed a “Motion to Dismiss under the Non-Violent

Offender Act of 2003 §2255” (00cr1502, Doc. # 51)in this district court. 

On July 7, 2008, Defendant Castillo filed an identical “Motion to Dismiss under the

Non-Violent Offender Act of 2003 §2255” (08cv1289, Doc. # 1) in the District Court for the

Central District of California. This motion subsequently was transferred to this district court

for consideration.

FACTS

On August 14, 2000, the Defendant Castillo entered a plea of guilty to Count one of an

Indictment charging him with Conspiracy to Smuggle Merchandise and to Sell Unapproved

Drugs in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3771 and 545 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 333(a)(2).

On November 3, 2000, Defendant Castillo was sentenced to imprisonment for a period

Case 3:08-cv-01289-WQH-CAB Document 6 Filed 08/07/08 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 -

of 24 months followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay a fine of

$4,000.00. 

On December 28, 2000, Defendant Castillo surrendered to USP Lompoc to serve his

sentence.

On April 21, 2001, Defendant Castillo was placed on escape status by the Bureau of

Prisons after it was determined that he was not within the boundaries of the prison camp. On

April 24, 2001, a criminal complaint for escape and a warrant of arrest were issued for

Defendant Castillo in the Central District of California.

On July 18, 2007, Defendant Castillo was arrested in Fallbrook, California based upon

the escape arrest warrant. Defendant Castillo was arraigned in San Diego on the escape

charge.

On July 13, 2007, the criminal complaint for escape was dismissed. Defendant Castillo

remained in custody to serve the remainder of the 24 months sentence imposed in 00cr1502-K.

Defendant moves the court for an order of release on the grounds that he has served his

term of imprisonment. Defendant further contends that he is entitled to early release under 18

U.S.C. § 3624 pursuant to a good time policy.

APPLICABLE LAW 

28 U.S.C. §2255 provides that “A prisoner under sentence of a court established by Act

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without

jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum

authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which

imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 

A petition under § 2255 can test only the propriety of the sentence imposed, not the

manner of execution. United States v. Gidding, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984). “Review

of the execution of a sentence may be had through petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Id. This court has jurisdiction to treat the “Motion to Dismiss” under §

2255 as a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because the Defendant is confined at

Case 3:08-cv-01289-WQH-CAB Document 6 Filed 08/07/08 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 -

the “San Diego Metropolitan Correction Center.” (Doc. # 51, Page 2). 

Waiver of Right to Collaterally Attack the Sentence

The record in this case conclusively shows that the Defendant has waived his right to

bring a § 2255 motion collaterally attacking the 24 months sentence imposed in 00CR1502-K.

In the plea agreement, the Defendant Castillo waived “to the full extent of the law, any right

to appeal or to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence ... unless the court imposes a

custodial sentence greater than the high end of the guideline range ... recommended by the

Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing.” (Doc. #55-2, Exhibit 1,

pages 12-13). This waiver is clear, express and unequivocal. Plea agreements are contractual

in nature, and their plain language will generally be enforced if the agreement is clear and

unambiguous on its face. United States v. Jeronimo, 298 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). The

Guideline sentence contemplated in the plea agreement was 30 - 37 months and the Court

imposed a sentence of 24 months. (Doc. # 36). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement,

the Defendant Castillo waived his right to collaterally attack the 24 months sentence imposed

in 00CR1502-K. Further, Defendant Castillo does not challenge the legality of the 24 months

sentence imposed in 00CR1502-K. Claim to good time credits

Habeas jurisdiction is available under 18 U.S.C. § 2241 for a claim by a prisoner that

he has been denied good time credits without due process of law Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d

1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989). However, courts require habeas petitioner to exhaust their

administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition. Huang v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1118,

1123 (9th Cir. 2004). The Bureau of Prisons has the authority in the first instance to calculate

good time credit and has an established administrative remedy procedure for an inmate to seek

formal review of any aspect of his imprisonment. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10-542.16 (1981). 

Defendant Castillo has not alleged any attempt to seek review by the Bureau of Prisons

or any adverse decision by the Bureau of Prisons relating to his claim that he is entitled to early

release under 18 U.S.C. § 3624 pursuant to a good time policy and is not entitled to relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 at this time. Further, the Court notes that the claim by Defendant

Castillo that he has not engaged in any violation of institutional disciplinary regulations plainly

Case 3:08-cv-01289-WQH-CAB Document 6 Filed 08/07/08 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 -

ignores his escape from custody.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss under the NonViolent Offender Act of 2003 §2255” (00cr1502, Doc. # 51) is denied; and Defendant’s

“Motion to Dismiss under the Non-Violent Offender Act of 2003 §2255” (08cv1289, Doc. #

1) is denied.

DATED: August 7, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01289-WQH-CAB Document 6 Filed 08/07/08 Page 4 of 4