Greenfield v. United States of America
ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion To Amend Jail Time Credit Without Prejudice re 1 . Signed by JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 7/22/11. (gls, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic n otifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CR. NO. 08-00634 JMS
CIV. NO. 11-00452 JMS-KSC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO AMEND JAIL TIME
CREDIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND JAIL TIME
CREDIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On July 19, 2011, pro se petitioner Therese Greenfield (“Petitioner”)
filed a “Motion to Amend Jail Time Credit,” claiming that she has not been given
credit for time served while incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center in
Honolulu from November 14, 2008 until March 12, 2009. For the reasons set forth
below, the court finds that the Motion challenges the “manner, location, or
conditions of the execution” of her sentence; construes the Motion as a Petition
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241; and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice.
Petitioner may refile in the proper jurisdiction, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia, and with the proper respondent, the warden
of the Federal Prison Camp located in Alderson, West Virginia (“FPC Alderson”).
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at FPC Alderson after her
conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On
August 18, 2009, this court sentenced Petitioner to serve 78 months imprisonment
followed by five years of supervised release. Petitioner now claims that she is
entitled to credit for time served while at the Federal Detention Center in Honolulu
from November 14, 2008 to March 12, 2009.
The Court Construes Petitioner’s Motion as Filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Petitioner filed the present Motion in her criminal case. Given the
nature of the relief sought, it more properly should have been filed as a civil case in
the nature of a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the court has directed the
Motion to be filed with a new civil case number, Civ. No. 11-00452 JMS-KSC.1
Further, a district court must determine at the outset whether a petition for writ of
habeas corpus filed by a federal prisoner is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). In
Because the Motion was filed in her criminal case, appearing to be a motion to “correct
the sentence” under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), Petitioner need not pay a filing fee. See Section 2255
Rule 3(b) & Advisory Committee Notes (“There is no filing fee required of a movant under
general, a federal prisoner seeking to contest the legality of a sentence must bring a
habeas petition under § 2255 in the sentencing court. Id. at 864. On the other
hand, a federal prisoner seeking to challenge the manner, location, or conditions of
an execution of a sentence must file a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 in the
district in which he or she is incarcerated. Id.
Petitioner is not contesting the legality of the sentence imposed by this
court; instead, by claiming that she is entitled to credit for time served in the
Federal Detention Center in Honolulu, she challenges the calculation of her
sentence, that is, the manner and conditions of the execution of her sentence at FPC
Alderson. Thus, the court construes the Petition as properly brought pursuant to §
2241. See Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d 349, 358 & n.16 (1st Cir. 1999);
Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474-75 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v.
Mares, 868 F.2d 151, 151 (5th Cir. 1989).
The Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition
District courts may grant habeas relief only “within their respective
jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The Supreme Court has clarified this limiting
language by holding that in habeas cases involving “present physical confinement,
jurisdiction lies in only one district; the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). Thus, “[w]henever a § 2241 habeas petitioner
seeks to challenge his [or her] present physical [confinement] within the United
States, he [or she] should . . . file the petition in the district of confinement.” Id. at
447. See also United States v. Little, 392 F.3d 671, 680 (4th Cir. 2004); Stokes v.
United States Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
While this court sentenced Petitioner and would have jurisdiction to
hear a § 2255 petition, it lacks jurisdiction to consider her § 2241 Petition because
she is not incarcerated within the District of Hawaii. Petitioner is currently
incarcerated at FPC Alderson, which is located within the Southern District of
West Virginia. The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s § 2241
Petition. As a result, the § 2241 Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to
refiling in the Southern District of West Virginia.
The Proper Respondent to Petitioner’s Petition is the Warden of FPC
Petitioner is notified that under 28 U.S.C. § 2242,2 the proper
respondent in a § 2241 petition is the custodian of the institution where the federal
Section 2242 provides in pertinent part:
“Application for writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified
by the person whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.
It shall allege the facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or detention,
the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of what
claim or authority, if known.”
prisoner is incarcerated. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this
“immediate-custodian” rule: “whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to
challenge his [or her] present physical custody within the United States, he [or she]
should name his warden as respondent[.]” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447. Thus, should
Petitioner file a § 2241 petition in the Southern District of West Virginia, the
proper respondent is the warden of FPC Alderson.
For the foregoing reasons, this court DISMISSES this matter without
prejudice. Petitioner may refile in the proper jurisdiction, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, and with the proper respondent,
the warden of FPC Alderson. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file
in this District.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 22, 2011.
/s/ J. Michael Seabright
J. Michael Seabright
United States District Judge
United States v. Greenfield, Cr. No. 08-00634 JMS, Civ. No. 11-00452 JMS-KSC, Order
Denying Defendant’s Motion to Amend Jail Time Credit Without Prejudice
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?