Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00009/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00009-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILSON THOMAS, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CR-F-98-5022 OWW

(No. CV-F-07-009 OWW)

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Wilson Thomas, a federal prisoner presently incarcerated at

F.C.I. in Sheridan, Oregon and who is proceeding in pro per, has

filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255. By this motion, Petitioner requests that “this court

correct his sentence under the current set of facts this

petitioner has no other option but to have the trial court Judge

enforce a California State Court Judge’s order to have both

sentences as imposed run concurrent and were not, because of an

ongoing government impediment” and seeks a “new Judgment and

Commitment that would allow for the time that the U.S.M.S. has

Case 1:07-cv-00009-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 7
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

According to the PACER docket, Petitioner’s Section 2241 1

motion remains under submission in the District of Oregon. 

2

inadvertently errored [sic] by failing to properly obey this

District Judge’s order to have and maintain a federal detainer on

him at all times even though the BOP loaned him out at the State

Court Judge’s order” and “for this court to give COMITY to the

State’s order to run the State sentence concurrent ....” 

On March 28, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States

District Court for the District of Oregon, No. CV-06-421-PA. In 1

opposing that motion, the BOP submitted the Declaration of BOP

employee Theresa T. Talplacido. Petitioner submits a copy of Ms.

Taplacido’s declaration in support of the instant Section 2255

motion, wherein Ms. Talplacido avers in pertinent part:

2. On March 24, 1995, Petitioner was

sentenced to three (3) years probation and

365 days in jail for Sale and Transportation

of a Controlled Substance, in the San

Bernardino, Superior Court, Case Number FBA00052 ....

3. On February 3, 1998, Petitioner was

arrested by the Fresno Police Department on a

probation violation from the County of San

Bernardino, California, Case Number FBA-00052

....

4. On February 6, 1998, Petitioner was found

in violation of probation and he was

transferred to the custody of West Valley

Central Jail, in San Bernardino, California

....

5. On April 24, 1998, the U.S.M.S. from the

Eastern District of California issued a Writ

Ad Prosequedum for Petitioner to appear in

federal court for among other things,

Case 1:07-cv-00009-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 7
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

3

Conspiracy to Distribute and to Possess

Cocaine with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and

Cocaine Base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846

and 841(a)(1), and Carrying a Firearm in

Relation to a Drug-Trafficking Crime, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ....

6. On February 1, 1999, Petitioner was

sentenced by the Honorable Judge Wanger, in

the Eastern District of California for

Conspiracy to Distribute and to Possess

Cocaine with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and

Cocaine Base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846

and 841(a)(1), for a 120 month sentence with

a 60 month supervision, and Carrying a

Firearm in Relation to a Drug-Trafficking

Crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for

a 60 month sentence with a 60 month

supervision as consecutive to each federal

sentence ....

7. Petitioner remained in the custody of

Fresno County Jail from April 28, 1998 to

February 17, 1999 ....

8. Petitioner was transferred to another

state facility, Kern County Jail from

February 17, 1999, to February 26, 1999 and

then to San Bernardino County Jail ....

9. On April 2, 1999, Petitioner was

sentenced by the State of California for

violation of probation on Case Number FBA00052, to three (3) years to run concurrent

with federal sentence ....

10. On May 19, 1999, Petitioner was

transferred to California Department of

Corrections (CDC), to Chino Prison, in Chino,

California. He was paroled and released to

the street on January 26, 2001, even though

he had a federal detainer. The U.S.M.S. was

notified and Petitioner was ordered detained

for service of his federal sentence ....

11. On April 2, 2001, Petitioner was rearrested by the U.S.M.S. and his federal

sentence commenced. His sentence computation

was verified by BOP on many occasions. His

federal sentence was calculated and

aggregated to a 180 months sentence with 60

Case 1:07-cv-00009-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/09/07 Page 3 of 7
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

4

month supervision. He was given a projected

release date of on or about May 8, 2014 via

Good Conduct Time Release.

12. On September 14, 2004, he arrived at FCI

Sheridan.

In the instant motion, Petitioner asserts that “[a]fter

starting his federal sentence, the State then came and retrieved

Mr. Thomas from Lompoc F.C.I. and took him to custody to

adjudicate a warrant ... whereupon the State Court Judge ordered

his 3 year state sentence to be run concurrent with his federal

sentence, and the Marshalls [sic] were at the completion of the

state sentence hearing to come and pick Mr. Thomas up and return

him to Lompoc F.C.I., that did not occur.” Petitioner further

asserts that “the Marshalls [sic] not only failed to retrieve him

they did not properly place a federal detainer on [him], and the

State of California, placed him in Chino Prison.” After

Petitioner was paroled by the State and released, “the U.S.M.S.

was notified and they rearrested [Petitioner] on April 2, 2001,

and he was returned to BOP custody without giving comity under

the United States Constitution to the State Court Judges order of

the time that by an error of the U.S.M.S. who was commanded by

the federal court Judge, Judge Wanger, to serve his federal

sentence.” Petitioner contends:

This petitioner would not have been able to

do anything but to request the U.S.M.S. to do

it’s duty and retrieve this petitioner by

monitoring the proceedings and picking this

petitioner up upon completion of his state

hearing. see Title 28 U.S.C. § 566(a). The

primary role and mission of the United States

Marshals Service to provide for the security

Case 1:07-cv-00009-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/09/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

and to obey, execute, and enforce all orders

of the United States District Courts and

Judge Wanger ordered Mr. Thomas to remain

detained, by lodging a detainer and keeping

track thereof of his body, and to maintain

control of Mr. Thomas even to the extent that

he was required to be retrieved and was not,

after the State Court had ordered his

sentence to run concurrent. Which now has

created an impediment to which he is paying

for by the tune of approximately 1095 days of

uncredited jail time, that BOP has no

authority, nor does the Warden of this

facility to adjust the Judgment and

Commitment or to correct the unlawful acts

which has caused his sentence to be

unconstitutionally lengthened.

The threshold issue is whether this court has jurisdiction

under Section 2255 to issue the petition for writ of habeas

corpus requested by Petitioner. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 204

F.3d 861, 864-865 (9 Cir.2000). th

Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence

must be filed under Section 2255 in the sentencing court, while

petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a

sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to Section 2241 in

the custodial court. Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165,

169-170 (9 Cir.1990); United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, th

771-772 (9 Cir.1984); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 th

(9 Cir.1980). th

Here, Petitioner challenges the failure of the BOP to credit

his federal sentence with the time served on his state sentence

in state prison because of the alleged failure by the U.S.

Marshals Service to return him to federal prison after the state

court imposed sentence to run concurrent with the federal

Case 1:07-cv-00009-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/09/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

sentence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides in pertinent part:

A prisoner in custody 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. 

In contending that this motion is properly brought pursuant

to Section 2255, Petitioner cites to Article IV, Section 1 of the

United States Constitution: 

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each

State to the public Acts, Records, and

Judicial Proceedings of every other State. 

And the Congress may by general Laws

prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,

Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and

the Effect thereof.

Petitioner also refers to Section 2255 as follows:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to

a motion under this section. The limitation

period shall run from the latest of -

...

(2) the date on which the 

impediment to making a motion created by

governmental action in violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States is

removed, if the movant was prevented from

making a motion by such governmental action

....

Neither of these provisions confer jurisdiction on this

court to consider Petitioner’s Section 2255 motion. The court

Case 1:07-cv-00009-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/09/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

concludes that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear

Petitioner’s motion. As noted, Petitioner seeks a “new Judgment

and Commitment that would allow for the time that the U.S.M.S.

has inadvertently errored [sic] by failing to properly obey this

District Judge’s order to have and maintain a federal detainer on

him at all times even though the BOP loaned him out at the State

Court Judge’s order” and “for this court to give COMITY to the

State’s order to run the State sentence concurrent ....” 

Petitioner makes no claim that the federal sentence imposed on

him was illegal or that this court lacked jurisdiction to impose

the sentence. Petitioner makes no showing that this court

intended that his federal sentence run concurrent with any state

sentence that might be imposed by the state court. Petitioner’s

claim relates solely to the execution of the federal sentence

imposed. Petitioner must seek this relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 in the district court for the district in which Petitioner

is incarcerated, i.e., the United States District Court for the

District of Oregon.

ACCORDINGLY, as set forth herein,

Petitioner’s motion for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00009-OWW Document 2 Filed 02/09/07 Page 7 of 7