HARRIS v. ZICKEFOOSE
Filing
13
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/18/2012. (TH, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JIMMY HARRIS,
Hon. Noel L. Hillman
Petitioner,
Civ. No. 11-7472 (NLH)
v.
DONNA ZICKEFOOSE,
OPINION
Respondents.
APPEARANCES:
JIMMY HARRIS, #30032-050
FCI Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640
Petitioner Pro Se
JOHN ANDREW RUYMANN, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
PAUL J. FISHMAN, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
402 E. State Street, Suite 430
Trenton, New Jersey 08608
Attorney for Respondents
HILLMAN, District Judge:
Before this Court is Petitioner’s motion to reconsider this
Court’s Order dismissing his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
For the reasons expressed below, this Court
will deny the motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Jimmy Harris, an inmate at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey,
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 challenging the calculation of his projected release date by
the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).
Petitioner argued in the Petition
that the BOP had abused its discretion, violated due process, and
violated the New Jersey court’s judgment of conviction in denying
his request under Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990),
to nunc pro tunc designate a New Jersey facility as the place of
federal incarceration during the 15-month period from May 29, 2009
(date of New Jersey arrest), through August 23, 2010 (date of New
Jersey parole), where all of this time was credited to Petitioner’s
New Jersey sentence.
After reviewing the Answer and Petitioner’s
Reply, on September 18, 2012, this Court dismissed the Petition
because Harris failed to show that the BOP abused its discretion or
violated federal law in rejecting his request for a nunc pro tunc
designation under Barden.
Petitioner signed (and filed under the mailbox rule) his motion
for reconsideration on September 25, 2012.
Petitioner states that
he “is now returning to this Court asking for jail credit under the
Willis/Kayfez method.”
(Dkt. 10 at 1.)
Harris contends that he
qualifies for Willis credits from June 3, 2009, to January 25, 2010.
Id. at 2.
He “ask[s] this Court to review ‘Willis’ credits [and]
then reconsider its denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which
he sought jail credit.”
Id.
2
II.
A.
DISCUSSION
Standard for Motion for Reconsideration
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is “to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.”
Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir. 1999).
A proper motion for reconsideration must rely on one
of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear
error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
See N. River Ins. Co.
v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).
B.
Analysis
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is not based on an
intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to
correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
Rather,
by way of his motion, Petitioner is attempting to present an entirely
new claim for relief, i.e., he is entitled to 257 days credit (June
3, 2009, to January 25, 2010) against his term of imprisonment under
Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1971), Kayfez v.
Gasele, 993 F.2d 1288 (7th Cir. 1983), and Program Statement
5880.28(2)(c).
In Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.
1971), Willis filed a § 2241 petition seeking credit on his federal
sentence for time spent in state custody prior to federal sentencing.
The Fifth Circuit held that if petitioner “was denied release on bail
3
[by the state] because the federal detainer was lodged against him,
then that was time spent in custody in connection with the (federal)
offense.”
Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d at 925 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
A Willis claim under § 2241 is
based on a factual scenario (denial by the state of pre-trial release
on bail due to a federal detainer) and a legal theory which are
different from and unrelated to a claim under Barden.
Since Harris’s
Petition did not include a Willis claim and respondent’s answer did
not respond to a Willis claim, it would be improper for this Court
to now amend the Petition to add a Willis claim.
Moreover, Harris
is free to raise a Willis claim in a new § 2241 petition, provided
he has first exhausted the claim through the Administrative Remedy
Program. 1
Because Harris’s motion for reconsideration is not based
on an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new
evidence, or the need to correct clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice, this Court will deny the motion for
reconsideration.
1
Petitioner’s projected release date is November 7, 2014. See BOP Inmate Locator,
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMore
List=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=30032-050&x=72&y=18 (Dec. 18, 2012). Therefore,
Petitioner has sufficient time remaining on his sentence to (1) exhaust
administrative remedies on his Willis claim and (2) benefit from a 257-day credit
in the event that his Willis claim is meritorious.
4
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny the motion
for reconsideration.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
December 18, 2012
At Camden, New Jersey
5
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?