Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01035/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01035-1/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 This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus and Respondent’s answer. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN H. ALVIES,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL SHULTZ,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1035 LJO SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that the Bureau of

Prisons (“BOP”) failed to provide him with prior custody credits. (Petition, at 3.) Petitioner

requests prior custody credit be applied to his federal sentence for the period of time he was in

the custody of the United States Marshal (“USM”) pursuant to a federal writ. (Petition, at 4.) 

BACKGROUND1

On June 12, 2002, Petitioner robbed a bank in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Attachment 1,

Declaration of Alicia N. Gonzaga, ¶ 4, Respondent’s Answer.) Petitioner was later arrested on

unrelated state charges and confined at the Clark County Detention Center in Las Vegas. (Id.) 

On October 23, 2002, a one count indictment was filed charging Petitioner with bank

robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a); P.S.R., ¶ 1. On October 30, 2002, Petitioner was placed in the

temporary custody of the USM pursuant to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. 

Case 1:05-cv-01035-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/22/07 Page 1 of 6
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

(Attachment 1, ¶ 5, Respondent’s Answer.) On that same date, Petitioner made his initial

appearance in federal court in the District of Nevada on the bank robbery charges. P.S.R., ¶ 2.

On March 24, 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to the bank robbery charges. Id. at ¶ 3. 

Petitioner was sentenced on July 7, 2003, to 70 months imprisonment and three years supervised

release. (Attachment 1, ¶ 7, and Exhibit C, Respondent’s Answer.)

During the pending federal criminal case, and after his sentence on the bank robbery

charges, the Nevada State authorities maintained primary custody of Petitioner until he was

paroled from the state charges on January 13, 2004, at which time his federal sentence

computation began. (Attachment 1, ¶ 5, Respondent’s Answer.) 

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 11, 2005.

Respondent filed an opposition to the petition on December 1, 2005. Petitioner did not

file a reply. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review 

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

pursuant to 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); 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); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). To receive relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 a petitioner in federal custody must show that his sentence is being executed in

an illegal, but not necessarily unconstitutional, manner. See e.g. Clark v. Floyd, 80 F.3d 371,

372, 374 (9th Cir. 1995) (contending time spent in state custody should be credited toward

federal custody); Jalili, 925 F.2d at 893-94 (asserting petitioner should be housed at a

community treatment center); Barden, 921 F.2d at 479 (arguing Bureau of Prisons erred in

determining whether petitioner could receive credit for time spent in state custody); Brown, 610

Case 1:05-cv-01035-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 6
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

F.2d at 677 (challenging content of inaccurate pre-sentence report used to deny parole). 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. Petitioner is

currently in custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons at Atwater, California, which is located within

the jurisdiction of this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 2241(d).

II. Exhaustion Administrative Remedies

Before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a federal prisoner challenging any

circumstance of imprisonment must first exhaust all administrative remedies. Martinez v.

Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986); Chua Han Mow v. United States, 730 F.2d 1308,

1313 (9th Cir. 1984); Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983). The requirement that

federal prisoners exhaust administrative remedies before filing a habeas corpus petition was

judicially created; it is not a statutory requirement. Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir.

1990). Thus, “because exhaustion is not required by statute, it is not jurisdictional.” Id. If

Petitioner has not properly exhausted his claims, the district court, in its discretion, may either

“excuse the faulty exhaustion and reach the merits or require the petitioner to exhaust his

administrative remedies before proceeding in court.” 

The government concedes that Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies.

III. Custody Time Credit Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)

As Respondent states, Petitioner is essentially seeking credit toward his federal sentence

for the time he was in federal custody pursuant to the writ ad prosequendum. (Petition, at 4.) 

A federal sentence does not begin to run when a federal defendant is produced from state

custody for federal prosecution pursuant to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. 

Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9 Cir. 1991). As Respondent submits, although th

Petitioner was in the physical custody of the USM during the time the federal writ was pending,

he was still in the primary custody of the State of Nevada, which had not relinquished its

jurisdiction by temporarily surrendering physical custody to the federal government. Id.; United

States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684-85 (9 Cir. 1980) (discussing priority of custody and service th

as between state and federal sovereigns). 

Case 1:05-cv-01035-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/22/07 Page 3 of 6
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

Moreover, as Respondent submits, Petitioner already received credit for his time in

temporary federal custody against his state sentence. (Attachment 1, ¶ 7, Respondent’s Answer.)

As previously stated, subsequent to the robbery on June 12, 2002, Petitioner was arrested by local

authorities in Nevada on unrelated state charges. Petitioner was released to federal custody on

October 30, 2002, pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The time Petitioner

was in the temporary custody of the USM was applied to his state sentence. Id. When Petitioner

entered federal custody on January 13, 2004, his state sentence had been completed. 

Petitioner is not entitled to double credit against his federal sentence, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3585(b). Section 3585(b) provides:

A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of

imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the

sentence commences - -

(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence is imposed; or

(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested

after the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; 

that has not been credited against another sentence. 

18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (emphasis added). 

As pointed out by Respondent, under section 3585(b), a district court does not have

authority to award a prisoner credit for time spent in official detention prior to sentencing. 

Rather, the Attorney General, through the BOP, is responsible for administering the sentence and

determining the amount of any pre-sentence credits. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-

35 (1991); United States v. Chencchini, 967 F.2d 350 (9 Cir. 1992). th

In Wilson, the Supreme Court reiterated that “a defendant could not receive double credit

for his detention time.” Wilson, 503 U.S. at 337. As previously stated, Petitioner received credit

for his time served in federal custody toward his state sentence. See Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d

at 1366-67 (district court did not err in denying writ of habeas corpus, because Attorney General

properly determined the date his federal sentence commenced); United States v. Kramer, 12 F.3d

130, 132 (8 Cir. 1993) (Bureau of Prisons properly decided not to award double credit for the th

time served that was already credited toward state sentence). 

Although when sentencing Petitioner on the bank robbery, the District Court of Nevada

Case 1:05-cv-01035-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/22/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

stated “[t]he defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons

to be imprisoned for a total term of SEVENTY (70) MONTHS. CREDIT FOR TIME

SERVED.” (Id., Exhibit C, p. 2.) As Respondent correctly argues, this language does not support

the finding that Petitioner is entitled to credit for the time he spent in state custody. Otherwise,

the state and federal sentences would have effectively run concurrent, and the district court that

sentenced Petitioner has already rejected that position. Specifically, in denying a habeas petition

brought by Petitioner in the District Court of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the district court

noted that in the underlying criminal proceedings, “[a] review of the plea memorandum

establishes that it does not contain a promise that Petitioner will be sentenced to a specific

sentence, nor does it state that his federal sentence will run concurrently with his state sentence.” 

(Attachment 3, p. 4, Respondent’s Answer.) The District Court’s notation that Petitioner should

get “credit for time served” meant credit for any time served in federal custody. As already

stated, at the time Petitioner was produced in court pursuant to a writ ad prosequendum,

Petitioner remained in state custody. Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d at 1366-67. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent. 

This Findings and Recommendations is 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 Recommendations.” 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

Case 1:05-cv-01035-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/22/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01035-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 06/22/07 Page 6 of 6