Detloff v. Terris

Filing 3

ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT R. DETLOFF,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-13954
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

v.

J.A. TERRIS,
Respondent,
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Scott R. Detloff, (“petitioner”), presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Milan, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1361, in which he challenges the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) failure to award him
credit against his federal sentence. For the reasons stated below, the instant petition is
DENIED.
Petitioner claims that the BOP has improperly extended his sentence by refusing to
award him 226 days of good conduct time and 72 days of jail credit against his sentence.
The remedy of mandamus in the federal courts is considered “a drastic one, to be
invoked only in extraordinary situations.” See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. of
California, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)(internal citations omitted). The party that seeks a writ
of mandamus must have no other adequate means to attain the relief that he or she desires
and must satisfy the burden of showing that his or her right to the issuance of the writ is
“clear and indisputable.” Id. at 403. A writ of mandamus is not available as a remedy for
1

a federal prisoner seeking sentencing credit against his or her federal sentence. See
Lambdin v. United States, 439 F.2d 1402, 1402 (6th Cir. 1971). Instead, a petition for writ
of habeas corpus under § 2241 is the proper means for challenging the manner in which
an otherwise valid sentence is executed. See United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94
(6th Cir.1991); Wright v. United States Parole Bd., 557 F.2d 74, 77 (6th Cir.1977).
Because § 2241 provides an available alternative remedy for petitioner to obtain credit
against his sentence, mandamus is not appropriate.
Although this Court could construe the petition for mandamus as a petition for writ
of habeas corpus, the Court declines to do so for several reasons.
First, any petition for writ of habeas corpus would be subject to dismissal because
petitioner has neither paid the $ 5.00 fee for filing a habeas petition nor has he filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. See e.g. Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz, 14 F. App’x. 348,
349 (6th Cir. 2001).
Secondly, when a pro se prisoner files a mislabeled civil action that should have
been filed under the habeas corpus statute, the general rule is that the suit should not be
converted into a habeas corpus action and decided on the merits. Instead, the proper
action is to dismiss the action without prejudice. See Staples v. Casperson, 6 F. App'x. 481,
483-84 (7th Cir. 2001).
This Court will dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to
petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge the computation of his
sentencing credits.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus
2

is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

s/ Nancy G. Edmunds____________
HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: December 14, 2017

3