UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN R. DALEY, JR., :

:

 Petitioner : No. 4:CV-05-1955

:

vs. : Petition Filed 09/01/05

:

WARDEN, FCI SCHUYLKILL, : (Judge Muir)

: 

Respondent : (Magistrate Judge Smyser)

ORDER

 January 19, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On December 21, 2005, we issued an order in which we, inter

alia, 1) granted John R. Daley, Jr.’s petition for habeas corpus

relief by requiring the Federal Bureau of Prisons immediately to

consider in good faith whether or not Daley should be transferred

to a community corrections center, and 2) closed this case. The

only claim in Daley’s petition was that the Bureau of Prisons

improperly decided the amount of his sentence which could be

served at a community corrections facility. The Bureau of

Prisons had previously construed the governing regulations as

limiting the amount of time that could be served in such a

facility to no more than ten percent of Daley’s sentence. As a

result of the recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit in Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d

235 (3d Cir. 2005), the Bureau of Prisons may allow an inmate to

Case 4:05-cv-01955-MM Document 18 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 3
2

serve more than ten percent of his sentence at a community

corrections center. 

On December 28, 2005, Daley filed a document entitled “Re:

‘Mandatory Affirmative Mandamus Relief.’” One portion of the

document states the following: “Now here comes ... Petitioner ...

and ‘Motions’ to the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania ... and

Judge Muir ... in regards to ... habeas corpus petition, No. CV05-1955.” (Document 17)(Emphasis in original) Based on those

assertions, it appears as though Daley intends the document to be

considered a motion filed in connection with his habeas corpus

petition and we view it as such.

A brief in support of the motion was due to have been filed

by January 17, 2006. To this date no such brief has been filed. 

Daley’s failure to file such a brief is one reason to deny his

motion. See M.D. Local Rule 7.5. However, that is not the only

reason to reach such a conclusion.

The basis for the motion is Daley’s displeasure with the

Bureau of Prisons’s decision to place him in a community

corrections center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Daley objects

and would prefer to be placed in such a facility in or near New

York City.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Woodall cited

with approval case law from other Courts of Appeals holding that

“a federal criminal defendant seeking to challenge the manner,

Case 4:05-cv-01955-MM Document 18 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 3
3

location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must proceed

with a petition for habeas corpus, brought pursuant to § 2241

...." Woodall, 432 F.3d 235, 243 n.7 (3d Cir. 2005)(quoting

United States v. Paige, 369 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1259 (D.Mont.2005)).

The habeas corpus petition Daley filed under the above

caption did not include any challenge to the location at which he

would serve his sentence in a community corrections center. In

the event Daley wishes to pursue such a challenge, we are of the

view that he is required to file another habeas corpus petition

after exhaustion of his available administrative remedies. Under

the circumstances of this case, Daley should provide the Bureau

of Prisons an opportunity to address his challenge to the

location of the community corrections center in which he will be

placed before proceeding by way of a federal habeas corpus

petition.

We will deny his motion for mandamus relief. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Daley’s motion for a writ of mandamus (Document 17) is

denied.

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:ga

 

Case 4:05-cv-01955-MM Document 18 Filed 01/19/06 Page 3 of 3