De Leon v. Copenhauer
Filing
18
ORDER Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Directing Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment in Favor of Respondent signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/26/2012. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ANGEL DE LEON,
10
1:12-cv-00976-BAM (HC)
Petitioner,
11
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING CLERK
OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF RESPONDENT
v.
12
PAUL COPENHAUER,
[Doc. 1]
13
Respondent.
14
/
15
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
16
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to
17
the jurisdiction of the United States magistrate judge. Local Rule 305(b).
18
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 18, 2012, in which
19
he seeks credit of approximately seven months against his federal sentence for time he spend in
20
federal custody from August 2, 2010 through August 10, 2010, and in state custody from March
21
10, 2010, through February 18, 2011.
22
Respondent filed an answer to the petition on October 11, 2012, and Petitioner filed a
23
traverse on November 19, 2012.
24
DISCUSSION
25
I.
Standard of Review
26
Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the
27
United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal
28
1
1
prisoner can show he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
2
United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner’s claims are proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
3
and not 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because they concern the manner, location, or conditions of the
4
execution of petitioner’s sentence and not the fact of petitioner’s conviction or sentence. Tucker
5
v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that a challenge to the execution of a
6
sentence is "maintainable only in a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
7
2241"); Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 549 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (allowing
8
a federal prisoner to use § 2241 to challenge the BOP's restitution policies).
9
Further, Petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence at the United States
10
Penitentiary in Atwater, California, which is within the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of
11
California; therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this petition. See Brown v. United States,
12
610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
III.
Review of Petition
A.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a federal prisoner challenging any
circumstance of imprisonment must first exhaust all administrative remedies. Martinez v.
Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986); Chua Han Mow v. United States, 730 F.2d 1308,
1313 (9th Cir. 1984); Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983).
Respondent concedes that Petitioner has exhausted the available administrative remedies.
(Resp’s Ans., Ex. 2, Copy of Administrative Remedy and Agency’s Answers.)
20
B.
Sentence Computation
21
Petitioner is currently serving a 27-month term of imprisonment for Illegal Re-entry by a
22
23
24
25
26
27
Previously Deported Alien after a Felony Conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(1).
(Resp’s Ans., Ex. 1, Farrar Decl., ¶ 7.)
On July 31, 2010, Petitioner was arrested by local authorities in Texas on charges of
Assault of a Family Member. On August 2, 2010, while he was still in state custody at the Harris
County Jail in Houston Texas, agents of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) became aware of his presence within the United States. Id. at ¶ 3.
28
2
1
Petitioner contends he was arrested by federal agents on August 2, 2010, and remained in
2
ICE custody for one week before being transferred back to state custody. Respondent submits a
3
copy of Petitioner’s National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) printout form which confirms
4
that Petitioner was arrested by ICE agents on August 2, 2010, and was placed in civil detention
5
pending alien removal pursuant to sections 212 and 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
6
codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1227. (Resp’s Ans., Ex. 1, Attachment 2, Copy of NCIC form.)
7
Thus, Petitioner was housed in ICE custody for one week, at which time he was returned to state
8
custody to face the state criminal charges related to his July 31, 2010 arrest.
9
On August 25, 2010, while Petitioner was in state custody, a federal indictment was
10
returned in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
11
charging Petitioner with Illegal Re-entry. (Resp’s Ans., Ex. 1, Farrar Decl., ¶ 5.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Petitioner remained in state custody until February 18, 2011, when he pleaded guilty and
was sentenced by the State of Texas to a one year term of imprisonment for Assault of a Family
Member. Before completion of the one-year term, the State satisfied Petitioner’s sentence and
released him to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer on February 18, 2011,
pending criminal charges for Illegal Re-entry. Id. at ¶ 6.
Petitioner remained in the custody of ICE until he was transferred to the custody of the
United States Marshal Service (USMS) on March 29, 2011. On April 8, 2011, Petitioner pleaded
guilty to one count of Illegal Re-entry, and on June 23, 2011, he was sentenced to a 27-month
federal term of imprisonment. Id. at ¶ 7.
20
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a) states: “[a] sentence to a term of imprisonment commences on
21
the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to . . . the official detention
22
23
24
25
26
facility at which the sentence is to be served.” The Attorney General is responsible for sentence
computation decisions under § 3585. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992); United
States v. Checchini, 967 F.2d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1992). Sentence computation authority has been
delegated to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 28 C.F.R. § 0.96; see also United States v. Moore,
987 F.2d 1029 (8th Cir. 1992).
27
28
3
1
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b):
2
3
A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of
imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the
sentence commences - -
4
(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence is imposed; or
5
6
7
8
(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested
after the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed;
that has not been credited against another sentence.
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (emphasis added).
Petitioner’s sentence computation began on June 23, 2011, the date his sentence was
9
imposed. Petitioner was awarded prior custody credit for the period he spent in federal pre-trial
10
custody from February 19, 2011, the date after he finished his state sentence, through June 22,
11
2011, the day before he was sentenced, which resulted in 124 days of prior custody credit, and a
12
projected release date of February 4, 2013. (Resp’s Ans., Ex. 1, Farrar Decl., ¶ 8.)
13
The time spent in state custody from July 31, 2010, through August 2, 2010, and from
14
August 10, 2010, through February 18, 2011, was not awarded as prior custody credit because
15
this is time Petitioner spent actually serving his state sentence. Id. at ¶ 9. Moreover, Petitioner
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
was not awarded credit for the period of August 3, 2010, through August 9, 2010, during which
he was in the custody of ICE.
The State of Texas has credited the time periods of July 31, 2010, through August 2,
2010, and August 10, 2010, through February 18, 2010, against his state sentence. (Resp’s Ans.,
Ex. 1, Farrar Decl., ¶ 7.) Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s claim there is no entitlement to double
credit against his sentence for these periods.
In United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992), the Supreme Court noted that, under
section 3585(b), “Congress made clear that a defendant could not receive double credit for his
23
detention time.” Id. at 337. Thus, under section 3585(b), Petitioner is not entitled to custody
24
credit if it was applied toward another sentence. United States v. Von Willie, 59 F.3d 922, 93025
26
27
931 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Kramer, 12 F.3d 130, 132 (8th Cir. 1993). In addition, a
federal sentence does not begin to run when a federal defendant is produced from state custody
for federal prosecution pursuant to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Thomas v.
28
4
1
Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir. 1991). When a prisoner is borrowed from primary
2
custody by way of a writ of ad prosequendum, principles of comity require the return of the
3
prisoner to the primary custodian when the prosecution has been completed. See United States v.
4
Warren, 610 F.2d at 684-685.
5
Petitioner is also not entitled to credit for the remaining days he spent in custody prior to
6
his conviction, specifically, August 3, 2010 through August 9, 2010. While it is true Petitioner
7
was in federal custody during this time, he was not in “official detention ... as a result of the
8
offense for which the sentence was imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Rather, Petitioner was in
9
civil detention pending removal proceedings. (Resp’s Ans., Ex. 1, Farrar Decl. at ¶ 9.)
10
Under existing precedent, detention by immigration authorities pending deportation is
11
considered civil, rather than criminal, in nature. See Ramirez-Osorio v. INS, 745 F.2d 937, 944
12
(5th Cir. 1984); Shoaee v. INS, 704 F.2d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 1983); and Cabral-Avila v. INS,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
589 F.2d 957. 959 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 920 (1979). Thus, various courts have
found that time spent in the custody of immigration officials awaiting a deportation
determination is not “official detention” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). See AlbaTovar v. United States, 2006 WL 2792677 *2 (D. Or. Sep. 22, 2006) (“Petitioner’s custody
during that time was due to pending administrative deportation proceedings and does not
constitutes ‘official detention’ under § 3585(b)” and therefore, the “BOP properly excluded that
time in calculating petitioner’s time served”); Galan-Paredes v. Hogsten, 2007 WL 30329 *2
(S.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2005) (same); United States v. Acosta-Leal, 2010 WL 4608477 *2 (S.D. Ill.
20
Nov. 5, 2010) (same); Ghadiri v. Sniezek, 2006 WL 3023034 *3 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2006)
21
(same); Decraene v. Winn, 2004 WL 594976 *3 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2004) (“given that . . .
22
23
24
25
26
27
deportation proceedings are civil in nature, petitioner cannot fairly contend that he was, while in
the custody of INS awaiting a deportation hearing, he was in custody ... as a result of the offense
for which the sentence was imposed ... or as a result of any other charge for which the defendant
was arrested after the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed”)
(quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, Petitioner’s detention in immigration custody
was not a result of the offense for which his current sentence was imposed, but rather the result
28
5
1
of his pending removal from the United States. Petitioner was not charged with a federal crime
2
until he was transferred back to state custody. Thus, Petitioner’s one week detention with ICE
3
was not “official detention” for purposes of awarding prior custody credit, and Petitioner’s claim
4
to the contrary is without merit.
5
For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus must be denied.
ORDER
6
7
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; and
9
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k
November 26, 2012
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?