Turpin v. Warden

Filing 5

ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Rhonda Turpin Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 3/6/2014.(Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RHONDA TURPIN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No.

PRISONER
3:14-cv-255(AWT)

ORDER
The petitioner currently is confined in the Federal Prison
Camp in Danbury, Connecticut.

She challenges her federal

conviction by a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
A petition filed pursuant to section 2241 is used to
challenge “the execution of a federal prisoner’s sentence,
including such matters as the administration of parole,
computation of a prisoner’s sentence by prison officials, prison
disciplinary actions, prison transfers, type of detention and
prison conditions.”

Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir.

2001) (citing Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474-75 (2d
Cir. 1997) (describing situations where a federal prisoner would
properly file a section 2241 petition)).

A challenge to the

underlying conviction or actual sentence imposed is filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which “channels collateral attacks

1

by federal prisoners to the sentencing court (rather than to the
court in the district of confinement) so that they can be
addressed more efficiently.”
F.3d 361, 373 (2d Cir. 1997).

Triestman v. United States, 124
Thus, as a general rule, federal

prisoners challenging the imposition of their sentences must do
so by a motion filed pursuant to section 2255 rather than a
petition filed pursuant to section 2241.

See id. at 373.

The petitioner directs the court to Bryant v. Warden, FCC
Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013), in support of her
contention that this court, rather than the sentencing court, can
order her release.

In Bryant, however, the court acknowledged

that reduction to the statutory maximum was permitted by the
court hearing the 2241 petition because the only challenge to the
sentence was that it exceeded the statutory maximum.
1288.

See id. at

The court specifically noted that the petitioner could not

assert any challenge to application of the sentencing guidelines
below the maximum sentence in a 2241 petition.

See id.

The petitioner states in the memorandum in support of her
petition that her case was remanded for resentencing because her
original sentenced exceeded the statutory maximum.
at 3.

See Doc. #1

Thus, she already was afforded the relief awarded in

Bryant.

The petitioner now argues that her sentence is improper

because the trial court relied on repealed law in calculating the
sentence.

She also challenges her conviction on the ground that

2

her indictment violates several federal statutes and rules of
criminal procedure because she was indicted as a victim.
Doc. #1 at 4.

See

The court concludes that the petitioner is

challenging the imposition of her sentence, so her challenge must
be presented to the sentencing court.
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to transfer this case to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for whatever action that
court deems appropriate.
It is so ordered
Dated this 6th day of March 2014, at Hartford, Connecticut.

/s/AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge

3