RODRIGUEZ v. SHARTLE
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO ANSWER, case re-opened. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 10/26/12. (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
J.T. SHARTLE,
:
:
Respondent.
:
________________________________:
RAY RODRIGUEZ,
Civil Action No. 12-1656 (RBK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter having come before this Court upon Petitioner's
submission of a Section 2241 habeas petition (“Petition”),
see Docket Entry No. 1, and it appearing that:
1.
Petitioner commenced this matter without submitting his in
forma pauperis application and without paying his filing
fee.
See Docket Entry No. 1.
The Court, therefore,
directed administrative termination of this matter, allowing
Petitioner an opportunity to cure the deficiency of his
submission.
See Docket Entry No. 2.
Petitioner,
thereafter, cured the deficiency of his filing by prepaying
his filing fee.
2.
While the Petition is of less than exemplar clarity, it
appears that Petitioner is seeking a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 writ
by asserting that his federal sentencing court, that is the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, directed retroactive adjustment of
Petitioner’s federal sentence by uttering certain, not
elaborated in the Petition, oral statements, which were made
during Petitioner’s federal sentencing proceedings.
generally, Docket Entry No. 1.
See,
In other words, it appears
that Petitioner is seeking enforcement of the adjustment
granted by his federal sentencing court (which measure was
allowed to the district courts in this Circuit since
Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2002), and was
validated by the Supreme Court in Setser v. United States,
132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012)).1
However, Petitioner articulated
his claims by mixing the Ruggiano challenges with the
1
In Ruggiano, the Court of Appeals explained that”the
sentencing court's authority under § 5G1.3(c) to “adjust" a
sentence is distinct from the BOP's authority under 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b) to “credit” a sentence, even though the benefit to the
defendant may be the same. See Ruggiano, 307 F.3d at 131-33.
Specifically, the “adjustment” that the sentencing court
exclusively can award under § 5G1.3(c) is a sentence reduction
designed to account for time spent in custody on a prior
conviction. When the federal court sitting in habeas review
faces the task of determining what type of “adjustment” the
sentencing court intended to apply, “the appropriate starting
point is to ascertain the meaning that . . . should [be] ascribed
to the sentencing court's directives.” Rios v. Wiley, 201 F.3d
257, 264 (3d Cir. 2000). When the oral pronouncement of sentence
and written sentence are in conflict, the oral sentence prevails.
See United States v. Chasmer, 952 F.2d 50, 52 (3d Cir. 1991).
When there is no conflict, “but rather only ambiguity in either
or both sentence pronouncements, the controlling oral sentence
“often consists of spontaneous remarks’ that are ‘addressed
primarily to the case at hand and are unlikely to be a perfect or
complete statement of the surrounding law.’” Ruggiano, 307 F.3d
at 133 (quoting Rios, 201 F.3d at 268). Importantly, “in
interpreting the oral statement, . . . the context in which this
statement is made is essential.” Id. at 134.
2
terminology commonly used with credits issued not by federal
courts but by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), i.e., the
terminology commonly used by the litigants seeking
administrative recalculation of their prison sentences under
the holdings of Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir.
1991), or Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.
1971), or Kayfez v. Gasele, 993 F. 2d 1288 (7th Cir. 1993).
3.
Petitioner’s efforts as to exhausting his administrative
remedies were, seemingly, even more problematic, since the
sole exhibit provided by Petitioner indicates that he raised
his mix of Ruggiano - Barden - Willis - Kayfez challenges
only to his warden, without appealing the warden's denial of
his application to either the Regional or the Central Office
of the BOP.
4.
See, generally, Docket Entry No. 1.
While this matter is greatly mired by ambiguities plaguing
Petitioner's submission, three important aspects appear
sufficiently certain:
a.
The warden, in denying Petitioner’s application, did
not consider or even obtain the transcripts of
Petitioner’s federal sentencing proceedings and, hence,
did not perform a proper Ruggiano - Rios analysis, see
Docket Entry No. 1, at 11-12 (although this Court
cannot rule out the possibility that the content of
Petitioner’s administrative application to the warden,,
3
which is omitted from the submission at bar, was so
confusing in terms of mixing Ruggiano - Barden - Willis
- Kayfez challenges that this very mix prevented the
warden from recognizing and properly addressing the
Ruggiano issue, that is, the core issue Petitioner is
seemingly striving to assert);
b.
Petitioner’s federal sentencing court, responding to
Petitioner’s request for a Ruggiano-like clarification,
actually entered an order, dated June 16, 2011,
verifying what appears to be Petitioner’s federal
sentencing court's unambiguous intent to direct
downward adjustment of Petitioner’s federal sentence by
means of ordering retroactive concurrence, see id. at
13; accord USA v. Rodriguez, Crim. Action No. 95-95
(LDD) (E.D. Pa.), Docket Entry No. 61;2 and
c.
Petitioner’s current, seemingly unadjusted, projected
date of release from federal confinement is August 7,
2013, which - in turns - means that, in the event
Petitioner’s federal sentencing court’s Ruggiano
2
It appears that Petitioner's federal sentence was imposed
on July 9, 2010, and yet Petitioner contacted his federal
sentencing court only a year later, that is. on June 9, 2011.
See USA v. Rodriguez, Crim. Action No. 95-95 (LDD) (E.D. Pa.),
Docket Entry No. 59. The Clerk of Petitioner's federal
sentencing court docketed Petitioner's letter on June 16, 2011,
and Petitioner's federal sentencing court responded same day.
See id. Docket Entries Nos. 60 and 61.
4
adjustment of ten months was, in fact, directed and
would be enforced by the BOP – Petitioner might be
eligible for release as soon as on November 7, 2012.3
5.
In light of the potential exigency of the circumstances at
bar, this Court finds it warranted to:
a.
excuse what appears to be Petitioner’s failure to duly
exhaust his administrative remedies, but see this
Memorandum Opinion and Order, n. 3;
b.
order Respondent’s answer to be filed within ten days
from the date of issuance of this Memorandum Opinion
and Order;4 and
3
While Petitioner's federal sentencing court responded to
Petitioner's letter on June 16, 2011, see USA v. Rodriguez, Crim.
Action No. 95-95 (LDD) (E.D. Pa.), Docket Entries Nos. 60 and 61,
and Petitioner's application for Ruggiano adjustment was denied
by his warden less than two months later, that is, on August 11,
2011, see Instant Matter, Docket Entry No. 1, at 12, Petitioner
waited more than eight months to file the Petition at bar.
Moreover, in his Petition, Petitioner did not state the projected
date of his release, which is August 7, 2013. See <>. In other
words, had this Court not checked Petitioner's BOP information in
connection with reopening of this matter, Petitioner could,
hypothetically, overserve his imposed term of imprisonment. This
Court, while having no information as to the reasons for
Petitioner's laxness (and, thus, for him creating the exigent
circumstances at bar), takes this opportunity to note its grave
concern with Petitioner's litigation practices.
4
The Court realizes that this short time frame imposes a
substantial hardship on the Office of the United States Attorney
for the District of New Jersey, which is expected to act as
counsel to Respondent, and extends it appreciation for the
efforts the Office of the United States Attorney will expend in
connection with this matter. The Court notes, however, its
5
c.
direct the Clerk of the Court to serve a complimentary
copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order on
Petitioner’s federal sentencing judge, Honorable
Legrome D. Davis (“Judge Davis”), to enable Judge
Davis’ contact with this Court and/or with the BOP (or
the agency's counsel), that is, in the event Judge
Davis finds any of such contact appropriate.
IT IS, therefore, on this
26th
day of
October
,
2012,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this matter by making a
new and separate entry on the docket reading, “CIVIL CASE
REOPENED”; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s seemingly present failure to duly
exhaust his administrative remedies is excused, as in the
interests of justice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the Petition
and this Memorandum Opinion and Order by certified mail, return
receipt requested, upon warden J.T. Shartle, at FCI Fairton
Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 280, Fairton, New
Jersey 08320 (which is, seemingly, the address utilized for
certainty that the Office of the United States Attorney – as this
Court – would wish to ensure that no person, Petitioner included,
spends a single day in confinement beyond the terms of that
person’s properly imposed criminal sentence.
6
mailing to that correctional facility's employees); and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the Petition
and this Memorandum Opinion and Order by certified mail, return
receipt requested, and, in addition, by means of electronic
delivery, upon the United States Attorney’s Office, which Office
is expected to act as counsel for Respondent.
The Clerk's
electronic transmission shall state, on the "subject" line,
"URGENT ACTION BY YOUR OFFICE REQUIRED" and, in addition, shall
state in the body of said electronic message, the following:
ATTACHED PLEASE FIND A MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DIRECTING ANSWER TO THE PETITION FILED IN THIS MATTER.
THE ANSWER IS DIRECTED TO BE PRODUCED WITHIN TEN DAYS
OF THE ELECTRONIC SERVICE IN LIGHT OF THE POSSIBILITY
THAT PETITIONER'S RELEASE MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE PLACE ON
NOVEMBER 7, 2012, IN THE EVENT PETITIONER'S CLAIMS
PROVE FACTUALLY TRUE AND LEGALLY VALID. THE COURT
GREATLY APPRECIATES YOUR ASSISTANCE AND EFFORTS IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS MATTER AND NOTES ITS SINCERE
REGRET FOR THE SHORT TIME-FRAME ALLOWED TO ANSWER;
and it is further
ORDERED that, within TEN DAYS of the date of the electronic
transmission of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Respondent
shall electronically file an answer which responds to the
allegations of the Petition, as detailed in this Memorandum
Opinion and Order in terms of both the facts and the governing
legal regime; and it is further
7
ORDERED that the answer shall state the statutory authority
for the period of Petitioner's detention, as it is currently
calculated by the BOP and, in alternative, in the event
Respondent determines that Petitioner's release date should be
altered to reflect the directives seemingly entered by
Petitioner's federal sentencing court, then the answer shall
inform this Court of the appropriate adjustment of Petitioner's
release date, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243; and it is further
ORDERED that, unless Petitioner's release date is adjusted
to reflect the ten-month Ruggiano v. Reish adjustment seemingly
directed by Petitioner's federal sentencing court, Respondent
shall electronically file with the answer certified copies of
Petitioner's sentencing transcript and sentencing order, and all
other documents relating to Petitioner’s Ruggiano v. Reish claim;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Honorable Legrome D. Davis of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Such
service shall be executed by means of electronic delivery, with
the "subject" line reading, "COMPLIMENTARY SERVICE.
SERVICE
DIRECTED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY," and the body of said
message reading, "ATTACHED PLEASE FIND THIS COURT'S MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER EXECUTED IN CONNECTION WITH A HABEAS
APPLICATION FILED IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, WHICH
8
APPLICATION IS BASED ON THE SENTENCE RENDERED AND A CLARIFICATION
ORDER ENTERED BY JUDGE LEGROME D. DAVIS IN USA V. RODRIGUEZ,
CRIM. ACTION NO. 95-95 (LDD) (E.D. PA.)"; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order on Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt
requested.
s/Robert B.Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
9
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?