HARRIS v. HOLLINGSWORTH
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/19/14. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JORDAN R. HOLLINGSWORTH,
Civil Action No. 13-4755(NLH)
Toler House RRC
20 Toler Place
Newark, NJ 07114
Petitioner pro se
John Andrew Ruymann, Esq.
Office of the U.S. Attorney
402 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
Counsel for Respondent
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Jimmy Harris, a prisoner currently confined at
Toler House Residential Re-entry Center in Newark, New Jersey,
has submitted a Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the calculation of his sentence. 1
Section 2241 provides in relevant part:
Respondent has answered and this matter is now ready for
Because the Bureau of Prisons has calculated
Petitioner’s sentence correctly, the Petition will be denied.
On or about May 29, 2009, Petitioner was arrested in Jersey
City, New Jersey, for possession with intent to distribute
controlled dangerous substances.
Petitioner asserts that he was
informed by Hudson County officials that there was a federal
detainer lodged against him which prohibited him from posting
bail on the state charge.
Petitioner has not provided any
evidence to substantiate this assertion.
On June 3, 2009, Petitioner was transported to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, pursuant to a
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, to answer unrelated
federal fraud charges.
See U.S. v. Harris, Crim. No. 09-0736
On January 25, 2010, Petitioner was sentenced in
federal court to a term of 58 months imprisonment to be followed
by three years supervised release.
The Judgment is silent as to
(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the
Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district
courts and any circuit judge within their respective
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a
prisoner unless -- ... (3) He is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States ... .
whether the federal sentence should be concurrent with or
consecutive to any pending or future state sentence.
Harris, Docket Entry No. 15.
returned to state custody.
On the same date, Petitioner was
(Answer, Decl. of John A. Farrar.)
Subsequently, on March 26, 2010, the State of New Jersey
sentenced Petitioner to a 3-year term of imprisonment on the
pending state drug charges.
The state sentence was ordered to
be served concurrently with the previously-imposed federal
The state court also gave Petitioner credit for the
time spent in custody since his arrest on state charges on May
Petitioner remained in state custody and, on August
23, 2010, the State of New Jersey released Petitioner from his
state sentence, via parole, to the U.S. Marshal’s Service to
begin serving his federal sentence.
The Bureau of Prisons has calculated Petitioner’s sentence
as commencing on August 23, 2010, and, taking into account all
relevant good-conduct time, the Bureau projects a release date
of November 7, 2014.
The Bureau has not given Petitioner credit
against his federal sentence for any time spent in state
custody, as all of that time was credited against his state
It is not disputed that, pursuant to Rios v. Wiley, 201 F.3d
257 (3d Cir. 2000), a prisoner detained by federal authorities
pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum remains in
the primary custody of the jurisdiction which first took him
Petitioner has brought this Petition asserting that he is
entitled to Willis 3 credits for the period from May 29, 2009,
when he was first taken into state custody, until March 25,
2010, the day before his state sentence was imposed. 4
has exhausted his administrative remedies.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 2241 to consider Petitioner’s claim that the Bureau of
Prisons has miscalculated his sentence.
See Blood v. Bledsoe,
648 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir. 2011); Vega v. United States, 493
into custody, unless the first sovereign relinquishes its
jurisdiction over the prisoner. Here, the State of New Jersey
never relinquished its primary jurisdiction over Petitioner,
until it released him on parole on August 23, 2010.
In Willis v. United States, 449 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1971),
decided under former 18 U.S.C. § 3568, the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit held that where a prisoner is denied release
on bail on state charges, because of a federal detainer, then
that is time spent in custody in connection with the federal
offense, and a federal prisoner may be entitled to credit-against his federal sentence--for that time if he is serving
concurrent federal and state sentences where the state sentence
will expire before the federal sentence.
This is Petitioner’s second § 2241 petition challenging the
calculation of his sentence. In Harris v. Zickefoose, Civil No.
11-7472, 2012 WL 4120537 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2012), aff’d, 511
F.App’x 135 (3d Cir. 2013), this Court held that the Bureau of
Prisons had properly exercised its discretion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(b) and Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990), in
declining Petitioner’s request for a nunc pro tunc designation
of his state prison as a place of serving his federal sentence,
which would have had the effect of commencing Petitioner’s
federal prison sentence on the day it was imposed, rather than
on the day he was released on parole to federal custody.
F.3d 310, 313 (3d Cir. 2007); Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005).
The Attorney General is responsible for computing federal
sentences for all offenses committed on or after November 1,
1987, United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585, and the Attorney General has delegated that authority to
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 28 C.F.R. § 0.96 (1992).
Computation of a federal sentence is governed by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585, and is comprised of a two-step determination of, first,
the date on which the federal sentence commences and, second,
the extent to which credit is awardable for time spent in
custody prior to commencement of the sentence.
(a) Commencement of sentence.--A sentence to a
term of imprisonment commences on the date the
defendant is received in custody awaiting
transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence
service of sentence at, the official detention
facility at which the sentence is to be served.
(b) Credit for prior custody.--A defendant shall
be given credit toward the service of a term of
imprisonment for any time he has spent in official
detention prior to the date the sentence commences(1) as a result of the offense for which the
sentence was imposed; or
(2) as a result of any other charge for
which the defendant was arrested after the commission
of the offense for which the sentence was imposed;
that has not been credited against another
18 U.S.C. § 3585(a), (b).
Pursuant to Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.
1971), as written into the relevant BOP Program Statement, where
a federal sentence is imposed to run concurrently to a state
sentence, and the federal sentence is to run longer than the
state sentence (not counting any credits):
Prior custody credits shall be given for any time
spent in non-federal presentence custody that begins
on or after the date of the federal offense up to the
date that the first sentence begins to run, federal or
P.S. 5880.28, Sentence Computation Manual - CCCA, Chapter 1,
Section 3, at Page 1-22 (1997).
Here, however, Petitioner’s federal sentence was not
ordered to run concurrently to his state sentence.
district court is silent regarding concurrence, “[m]ultiple
terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run
18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).
Accordingly, where, as
here, a prisoner has finished serving a state sentence before
his federal sentence begins, he is not entitled to Willis
See, Castro v. Sniezek, 437 F.App’x 70 (3d Cir. 2011);
Galloway v. Warden of F.C.I. Fort Dix, 385 F.App’x 59, 61, 63,
65 (3d Cir. 2010) (noting that “neither the federal courts nor
the BOP are bound in any way by a state court’s direction that
the state and federal sentences run concurrently” (citations
The Bureau of Prisons properly determined that Petitioner’s
federal sentence commenced to run on August 23, 2010, when he
was delivered into federal custody and that he is not entitled
to any credit for the time spent in state custody, all of which
was credited to his state sentence.
The Petition will be
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition will be
An appropriate order follows.
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
Noel L. Hillman
United States District Judge
September 19, 2014
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?