Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150327_0000675.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-02-21 13:39:46
Document Index: 120480073

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2242', '§ 2243']

TOMICA S. COOPER, Petitioner,
Tomica S. Cooper, F.M.C. Carswell Ft. Worth, TX, Petitioner Pro se.
Petitioner Tomica Cooper, a prisoner confined at the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas, files a Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, challenging the calculation of her sentence. Specifically, she requests that the Regional Information System Administrator of the Federal Bureau of Prisons credit her 850 days of Prior Custody Time Credit.
A. The Proper Statute
A habeas corpus petition is the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the "fact or duration" of his confinement, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973), including challenges to prison disciplinary proceedings that affect the length of confinement, such as deprivation of good time credits, Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 158 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). See also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005). Habeas corpus is an appropriate mechanism, also, for a federal prisoner to challenge the execution of his sentence. See Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485-86 (3d Cir. 2001); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3d Cir. 1990).
"Section 2241 is the only statute that confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence." Coady, 251 F.3d at 485-486.
Because Petitioner is challenging the execution of her sentence by requesting Prior Custody Time Credit, her Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence is construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Coady, 251 F.3d 480; Barden, 921 F.2d 476.
C. The Proper Venue
Moreover, the proper venue for a § 2241 proceeding is the prisoner's district of confinement. See Meyers v. Martinez, 402 F.App'x 735, 735 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004)); see also Toney v. Fishman, No. 12-2108, 2014 WL 1232321 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2014) (collecting cases). As noted above, Petitioner is currently incarcerated at F.M.C. Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 500 (1973) (personal jurisdiction over a federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 lies in the federal judicial district in which the custodian of the petitioner resides); Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948); Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 1994); Hernandez Jaruffe v. Chertoff, No. 07-2253, 2007 WL 1521181 (D.N.J. May 22, 2007).
Petitioner has named as Respondent the United States of America. Petitioner is informed that, among other things, 28 U.S.C. § 2242 requires the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to allege "the name of the person who has custody over [the petitioner]." See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained."). "[T]hese provisions contemplate a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court ...