Bova v. Bradley

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which she seeks "hardship credit for hardtime served" is DENIED AND DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 11/8/17. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
YOLANDA RENA BOVA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
P. BRADLEY,
Respondent.

No. 4:17-CV-2491 DDN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 25, 2017, petitioner Yolanda Rena Bova, an inmate at Federal
Correctional Institution in Aliceville, Alabama, filed a pro se motion for “hardship credit for
hard-time served.” After reviewing petitioner’s motion, the Court construes this action as an
application for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court will
dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3).
Background
On January 9, 2017, petitioner pled guilty to four counts of a five-count Indictment of
theft of government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 641. Case No. 4:15CR543 CDP.
On April 5, 2017, petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of thirty-three months’ on
each count of the indictment, each count to be served concurrently, with a two-year term of
supervised release.1 Petitioner’s sentence was to run consecutively to any sentence imposed in
Case No. 15SL-CR01408-01 (St. Louis County Court). Petitioner did not file an appeal of her
conviction or sentence.

1

Monetary restitution was also ordered.

Discussion
Petitioner’s current motion requests that the Court grant her two days of credit for every
day that she spent in pretrial detention at the St. Louis County Justice Center. According to
petitioner, she spent approximately 350 days in pretrial detention. Petitioner contends that she
should be provided double credit because the conditions at the County Justice Center amounted
to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
First and foremost, the Court notes that to the extent petitioner is seeking a review of the
execution of her sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, she must file her petition in the district
court with jurisdiction over the facility in which she is confined. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). As such, this matter must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Furthermore, because the Court has already sentenced petitioner, any calculation of credit
for time served is within the exclusive province of the Bureau of Prisons. See Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (“A judgment of conviction that includes a sentence of
imprisonment constitutes a final judgment and may not be modified by a district court except in
limited circumstances.”). And, petitioner must first exhaust her administrative remedies with the
BOP prior to seeking relief in any federal court.
The Court concludes that petitioner has not demonstrated a basis upon which this Court
can grant the requested relief. The Court also notes that while petitioner was at St. Louis County
Justice Center, she did not challenge the conditions at the facility, nor did she request double
credit for the time spent in pretrial detention at the time of her sentencing on April 5, 2017.

2

Defendant shall direct any future requests regarding the computation of time served to the
Bureau of Prisons.2
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s application for writ of habeas corpus
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which she seeks “hardship credit for hardtime served” is
DENIED AND DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.
Dated this 8th day of November, 2017.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

“Federal prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing § 2241 petitions” in
federal courts. McClung v. Shearin, 90 F. App'x 444, 445 (4th Cir.2004) (No. 03–6952) (citing
Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 634 (2d Cir.2001); Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d
953, 953–54 (6th Cir.1981)). This exhaustion requirement is analogous to the exhaustion of state
remedies requirement for a state prisoner seeking federal habeas review. Carmona, 243 F.3d at
634.
3