UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL STRAIT, : No. 4:CV-06-1140

:

Petitioner : (Petition Filed 06/05/06)

:

vs. :

:

UNITED STATES, : (Judge Muir)

:

Respondent :

ORDER

 September 19, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On June 5, 2006, Michael Strait filed a document entitled 

“28 U.S.C. § 2241 Motion Challenging the Execution of Sentence.” 

Strait alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has not properly

calculated the time remaining on the sentence we imposed upon him

on January 7, 2004. On July 5, 2006, Strait paid the $5.00 filing

fee. 

On July 7, 2006, we issued an order requiring the Respondent

to show cause why Strait’s petition should not be granted. On July

27, 2006, we granted the government’s motion for an extension of

time to respond to Strait’s petition. The government timely filed

its response on August 10, 2006. The time allowed for Strait to

file a reply brief expired on August 28, 2006, and to this date no

such brief has been filed. 

The certificate of service attached to Strait’s undated habeas

Case 4:06-cv-01140-MM Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 6
2

corpus petition indicates that he mailed a copy of the petition to

the government on May 26, 2006. If Strait had sent the copy of his

petition for filing with the court on the same date, then it took

10 days for the document to reach the court. Based on that delay

in receiving documents mailed by Strait, we withheld ruling on his

petition to ensure that no reply brief would be filed. Strait’s

habeas corpus petition is ripe for disposition. Before proceeding

to consider the substantive merits of Strait’s petition, we will

set forth the material facts.

Strait was originally arrested on December 13, 2002, by

Pennsylvania authorities for alleged state crimes. On January 9,

2003, a federal indictment was filed charging Strait with federal

crimes related to the same events which were the subject of the

state charges. Although the Pennsylvania charges were dismissed in

the wake of the federal indictment, Strait remained in state

custody until May 24, 2005. 

On March 25, 2003, Strait pled guilty to one count of the

federal indictment. On May 24, 2005, the United States Marshal

Service took Strait into custody and he began serving the 46-month

federal sentence which we had imposed to run consecutively to any

other sentence.

Throughout the period of his federal incarceration, Strait has

claimed that the manner in which the Federal Bureau of Prisons has

Case 4:06-cv-01140-MM Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 6
3

given him credit towards the federal sentence we imposed upon him

on January 7, 2004, has violated his constitutional rights. He

specifically claims that all of the time since December 12, 2002,

should be credited towards his federal sentence because the state

authorities are requiring Strait to serve his federal sentence

before he can commence serving the sentence for any parole

violation. 

Strait seeks the following relief in his petition:

1. Based on the fact that the U.S. District Court 

SPECIFICALLY ORDERED that movant serve his current federal 

sentence CONSECUTIVE to his state sentence, movant ask’s [sic]

that the court will order movant’s COMPLETION of ALL state

obligations, effective from March 7, 2003/September 7, 2005

... (18 months).

2. September 8, 2005/May 24, 2005 [sic] (8 months & 17 days)

awarded towards movants [sic] federal sentence ... [and]

3. That the detainer currently lodged against movant by the

[Pennsylvania Board and Probation and Parole] to be ORDERED

REMOVED from movant’s federal institution file as being

completed.

(Habeas Corpus Petition, pp. 8-9)(Emphasis in original) Strait’s

attempts to obtain any relief with respect to his federal sentence

by way of exhausting his administrative remedies were unsuccessful. 

However, in the course of preparing its response to Strait’s

habeas corpus petition, the government apparently concluded that

his position had merit. On page 12 of its response, the government

represents the following: 

 On August 2, 2006, [Inmate Systems Manager] Al Farley spoke

with Jonathan Janice from [the Pennsylvania Board of Probation

and Parole] and he indicated that the [Bureau of Prisons]

Case 4:06-cv-01140-MM Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 6
4

could not determine what portion of prior custody credit

Strait will receive and it should grant credit from December

13, 2002 to May 23, 2005 towards Strait’s federal sentence.

...

 Therefore, on August 8, 2006, Strait’s sentence computation

was updated to reflect prior custody credit from December 13,

2002 to January 6, 2004, the day before his federal sentence

was imposed. ... Strait’s computation was changed to reflect

a beginning date of January 7, 2004, the date the sentence

[was] imposed. ...

 Strait was scheduled for release from his federal sentence

via [Good Conduct Time] release on April 15, 2006. ... 

Therefore, his federal sentence has been completed and prior

custody credit towards his federal sentence is moot. 

Furthermore, Strait was released to the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania pursuant to the detainers filed by Probation and

[the] McKean County District Attorney’s office.

(Response to Habeas Corpus Petition, pp. 12-13)

It is well-settled that “[a] necessary predicate for the

granting of federal habeas relief is a determination by the federal

court that [his or her] custody violates the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States.” Rose vs. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21,

96 S. Ct. 175, 177 (1975)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241). Our threshold

inquiry is whether Strait has established that predicate. 

The government’s response to Strait’s petition indicates that

any alleged constitutional violation arising from the manner in

which the Bureau of Prisons calculated the credit to apply towards

Strait’s federal sentence no longer exists as a result of the

recalculation performed by the Bureau of Prisons on August 8, 2006. 

To the extent that Strait challenges the calculation of the time

remaining on his federal sentence, his habeas corpus petition will

Case 4:06-cv-01140-MM Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 4 of 6
5

be dismissed as moot.

We further note that the forms of relief set forth in Strait’s

petition extend to the manner in which the Pennsylvania state

authorities will calculate the credit to be applied towards the

sentence to be served on his parole violation. We are of the view

that such relief is beyond our jurisdiction because it does not

relate to any federal custody and the only respondent named in

Strait’s petition is the “United States of America,” which is no

longer responsible for Strait’s custody. We will deny without

prejudice the portion of Strait’s petition which may be construed

as a challenge to the manner in which credit will be awarded to him

towards any state sentence.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Strait’s habeas corpus petition (Document 1) filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied for the reasons

provided in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this order.

2. The portion of Strait’s petition addressing the manner in

which credit was applied towards his federal sentence is

denied on the basis that it is moot.

3. The portion of Strait’s petition addressing the manner in

which credit may be applied towards any state sentence is

denied without prejudice to his right to pursue relief in

the state courts.

Case 4:06-cv-01140-MM Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 5 of 6
6

4. The Clerk of Court shall close this file.

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:gja

Case 4:06-cv-01140-MM Document 9 Filed 09/19/06 Page 6 of 6