Santiago Rivera v. Grondolsky

Filing 15

Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr: OPINION AND ORDER entered. re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) filed by Edwin J. Santiago Rivera (Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-12317-GAO
EDWIN J. SANTIAGO-RIVERA,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN JEFF GRONDOLSKY,
Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER
June 28, 2017
O’TOOLE, D.J.
Edwin Santiago-Rivera, an inmate at the Federal Medical Center Devens, has filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his petition, Santiago-Rivera
claims that his federal conviction and sentence are unlawful, and he seeks his release. For the
reasons set forth herein, the § 2241 petition is denied because the proper avenue to seek relief from
an unlawful detention such as the petitioner claims is provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Under § 2255, a federal prisoner who claims that his “sentence was imposed in violation
of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose
such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is
otherwise subject to collateral attack” can move the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct
the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). He may not challenge the legality of his sentence through an
application for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 unless it appears that a § 2255 motion is
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Id. § 2255(e).
Santiago-Rivera’s petition broadly challenges the constitutionality of his sentence and the
jurisdiction of the sentencing court. Despite his claim that he is attacking the “execution” of his

sentence, he is in fact attacking its imposition. See Barr v. Sabol, 686 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136 (D.
Mass. 2010) (“Execution of a sentence includes matters such 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.” (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Moreover, it appears that Santiago-Rivera has filed a § 2255 motion in the District of
Puerto Rico, the sentencing court. The so-called savings clause of § 2255 does not apply because
“[t]his Court cannot ascertain any credible reason why a motion under § 2255 would be ineffective
or inadequate where he has a pending § 2255 motion, and there is absolutely no indication that the
motion would not be decided within a reasonable period of time.” Bultmeyer v. Grondolsky, Civil
Action No. 13-40119-FDS, 2013 WL 5538450, at *4 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2013) (emphasis in
original).
Accordingly, the petition (dkt. no. 1) is DISMISSED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2