Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01049/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01049-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Homero Alfaro Bustos
Petitioner
United States of America
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

HOMERO ALFARO BUSTOS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-01049-AWI DLB (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

BACKGROUND

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On November 1, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to intervene and issue an order for the

appropriate application of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1)(2), in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California, which was construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is unlawfully calculating certain

“good time credit” that would reduce the length of his sentence. Respondent filed an answer to

the petition on December 21, 2007. (Court Doc. 5.) The petition was transferred to this Court on

July 22, 2008. (Court Doc. 6.) 

As submitted by Respondent in its answer, on March 3, 1997, a federal grand jury in the

Central District of California returned an indictment against Petitioner and three codefendants,

Case 1:08-cv-01049-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/12/08 Page 1 of 5
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

charging Petitioner with one count of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine (count one) and

two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (counts three and four).

On December 3, 1997, Petitioner signed a written plea agreement and pled guilty to count

one of the indictment. On March 13, 1998, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 168 months

imprisonment and a five-year period of supervised release. Petitioner’s projected release date is

May 9, 2009. 

DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction

Habeas corpus relief is appropriate when a person “is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Petitioner asserts that

he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 

With respect to jurisdiction over the person, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) provides that writs of

habeas corpus may be granted by the district courts “within their respective jurisdictions.” A writ

of habeas corpus operates not upon the prisoner, but upon the prisoner’s custodian. Braden v. 30th

Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-495 (1973). 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 v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). It is

sufficient if the custodian is within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at the time the petition

is filed; transfer of the petitioner thereafter does not defeat personal jurisdiction that has once

been properly established. Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 193 (1948), overruled on other

grounds in Braden v. 30 Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. at 193, citing Mitsuye th

Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 305 (1944); Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9 Cir. 1990). th

Review of the petition shows that Petitioner is incarcerated at the Taft Correctional

Institution which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the Court has

jurisdiction over the action. 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Exhaustion

A prisoner’s claim that the BOP is improperly calculating his release date is properly

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, so this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant

Case 1:08-cv-01049-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/12/08 Page 2 of 5
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

petition. Fraley v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 1993). 

A prisoner is required to exhaust the administrative remedies with the BOP before he can

bring a section 2241 petition challenging the conditions of his confinement. Brown v. Rison, 895

F.2d 533, 535 (9 Cir. 1990). Respondent concedes that the BOP’s records demonstrate that th

Petitioner has complied with the exhaustion requirement. (Attachments to Memorandum in

Support of Petition A-I; Court Doc. 2.) 

C. Challenge to Calculation of Good Time Credits

The award of good time credits for federal prisoners is governed by 18 U.S.C. §

3624(b)(1). That section states that a prisoner who is serving a sentence of more than one year,

but less than life, “may receive up to fifty-four days at the end of each year of the prisoner’s term

of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term,” subject to the BOP’s

determination that “during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with

institutional disciplinary regulations.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1).

The credit toward the prisoner’s sentence is calculated at the end of each year. However,

when the prisoner approaches the end of his sentence, the calculation must be made before the

end of the year and must be prorated. Section 3624 specifies that “credit for the last year or

portion of a year of the term of imprisonment shall be prorated and credited within the last six

weeks of the sentence.” Id. 

The question that arises in this situation is whether the phrase “term of imprisonment”

means the length of the actual sentence that was imposed by the district court or the amount of

time that the prisoner actually serves. The BOP has implemented a regulation that adopts the

amount of time actually served by a prisoner as the basis for the proration. 28 C.F.R. § 523.20. 

Petitioner appears to argue that his good time credits should be based, not on the number

of days actually served, but on the number of days to which he is sentenced. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d

991 (9 Cir. 2005). There, the Court analyzed the BOP’s interpretation of the maximum good th

time credit a federal prisoner can receive under section 3624(b). The Ninth Circuit determined

that its earlier decision in Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9 Cir. 2001) established th

Case 1:08-cv-01049-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/12/08 Page 3 of 5
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

that the phrase “term of imprisonment” in § 3624(b)(1) is ambiguous, that the legislative history

did not remove that ambiguity, and the BOP regulation is based on a permissible construction of

the statute. Mujahid, 413 F.3d at 999. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the BOP’s

interpretation of “term of imprisonment” as “time served” was reasonable. Mujahid, at 997

(citing Pacheco-Camacho, at 1271.) In Pacheco-Camacho, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that “[t]his

interpretation comports with the statutory language of section 3624(b), and does not subvert the

statutory design. It establishes an effective and fair prorating scheme, enabling inmates to

calculate with reasonable certainty the end of their imprisonment, while preventing certain

prisoners from receiving disproportionate good time credits merely because their sentence

happens to equal a year and a day.” Pacheco-Camacho, at 1270-71. 

Here, as Respondent submits, Petitioner has been in custody since February 26, 1997, and

every year, on February 25 , he receives 54 days of good time credit toward his sentence. th

(Exhibit A, to Answer.) Thus, if Petitioner continues to behave in a satisfactory manner, he will

continue to receive 54 days of good time credit toward his sentence up to February 25, 2009. 

(Id.) Then, at that point, Petitioner will have less than one year to serve on his sentence, and he

will receive a prorated portion of time based on a rate of 0.148 days credit per day he serves in

custody. (Id.) The prorated calculation will provide Petitioner an additional 10 days of good

time credit, which yields a projected release date of May 9, 2009. (Id.) If Petitioner receives all

of the good time credit, his total time in custody will be 12 years, two months, and 14 days, on a

14-year sentence. Therefore, applying the rationale set forth by the Ninth Circuit in PachecoCamacho and reinforced in Mujahid, Petitioner’s claim that his good time credits should be

based on the number of days to which he was sentenced, and not the number of days actually

served, must be DENIED. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

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

2. Judgment be entered in favor of Respondent.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States

Case 1:08-cv-01049-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/12/08 Page 4 of 5
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

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 Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 11, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01049-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/12/08 Page 5 of 5