Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01045/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01045-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gabriel Mullins
Petitioner
Jeff Wrigley
Respondent

Document Text:

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

GABRIEL MULLINS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01045-OWW-TAG HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION

FOR SCHEDULING ORDER AND

EXPEDITED REVIEW (Doc. 5) 

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE

A RESPONSE 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 10, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1). Petitioner

alleges that, as an inmate at the Taft Correction Institution, the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has

refused to assess petitioner pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), to determine if he is eligible for six

months of pre-release placement at a Community Corrections Center ("CCC"). (Doc. 1, p. 1). 

Petitioner alleges that the BOP's failure to provide such an assessment is in violation of federal law,

i.e., § 3621(b). (Id.). Petitioner seeks an order from this Court that BOP be required to immediately

assess Petitioner's eligibility for CCC pursuant to § 3621(b). (Id.). 

On November 1, 2006, petitioner filed a Motion for Scheduling Order and for Expedited

Review. (Doc. 5). In that motion, petitioner alleges that, should the court adopt his interpretation of

§ 3621(b), he would be eligible for release to the CCC as of July 9, 2007. (Id. at p. 1). Petitioner

Case 1:06-cv-01045-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 11/08/06 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

also contends that, because this precise issues was addressed by this Court in Horn v. Ellis, 1:06-cv00006-OWW-TAG, Respondents "need minimal time to refine their previous arguments, if any." 

(Id. at p. 2). Petitioner also argues that there "are no transcripts or documents relevant to the courts

[sic] determination in this matter. This is purely a legal issue. The Petitioner only ask [sic] that the

court order BOP to conduct an assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)." (Id.). Respondents have

filed no opposition to petitioner's motion.

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. 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). 

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, manor. 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); Tubwell, 

37 F.3d 175 (alleging error in parol revocation); Hutchings, 835 F.2d at185-86 (claiming Board of

Parole mistakenly denied petitioner's release); Brown, 610 F.2d at 677 (challenging content of

inaccurate pre-sentence report used to deny parol). A petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas

///

Case 1:06-cv-01045-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 11/08/06 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

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must file the petition in the judicial district of the petitioner's

custodian. Hutchings, 835 F.2d at187; Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. 

In this case, petitioner is alleging that the BOP has failed to properly apply 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3621(b), thereby illegally limiting the amount of time petitioner may be placed in a CCC facility. 

Petitioner is thus challenging the execution of his sentence rather than the imposition of that

sentence. Therefore, his petition is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In addition, because petitioner is

currently incarcerated at Taft Correctional Facility, and Taft Correctional Facility is within the

Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, this court has jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of

the petition.

Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violations of rights

are proved, and because the court finds that GOOD CAUSE exists for granting the Motion for

Scheduling Order and Expedited Review, respondent is ORDERED to file a response within fifteen

(15) days of the date of service of this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; cf. Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall include with the response any and all transcripts or

other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the petition. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Petitioner's Motion for Scheduling Order and Expedited Review (Doc. 5), is GRANTED

to the extent that the court will reduce the period of time for respondent to file his response

from forty-five days to fifteen days;

2. Respondent SHALL file a response to the petition within fifteen (15) days of the date of

service of this order and shall include with that response any and all documents relevant to

the determination of the issues presented in the petition;

3. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due on or before seven (7) days from the date 

respondent’s response is filed; and,

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01045-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 11/08/06 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

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner’s

petition, along with all exhibits, on the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of

California or his representative, an agent for the Taft Correctional Institution, and the United

States Bureau of Prisons.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01045-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 11/08/06 Page 4 of 4