Estrella v. Terrell

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Petitioner was advised that if he failed to replead his conditions of confinement claim in a timely manner, the Petition would be dismissed without prejudice. More than forty-five days have elapsed and Petitioner has failed to respond to the court's order. Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 10/13/2011. (c/m to pro se; fwd'd for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny)

FILED

IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.O.N.Y.

*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------){

OCT 1 4 2011

*
,,.

BROOKLYN OFFICE

MARIO ALBERTO ESTRELLA,

ORDER

Petitioner,

10-CV-3777 (NGG)
-againstDUKE TERRELL, Warden, Metropolitan Detention Center,
Respondent.

---------------------------------------------------------){
GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
On August 12, 2010, Petitioner, pro se, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking a reduction of his criminal sentence under the
United States Sentencing Guidelines§ 5K2.0, due to the conditions of confinement at the
Metropolitan Detention Center. (Pet. (Docket Entry # 1) at pg. 2.) Petitioner has been sentenced
to a term of incarceration by the United States District Court for the District ofNew Jersey. See
USA v. Estrella, 3:08-cr-00267-FLW.
By order dated May 13, 2011, this court noted that it was unclear whether Petitioner
stated a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241. (Docket Entry # 2.) Accordingly,
Petitioner was informed: (a) that if he wished to challenge the legality of the sentence imposed,
he would have to bring the challenge under § 2255, and he must do so in the court that imposed
his sentence, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, see 28 U.S.C. §
2255(a); and (b) that if he wished to challenge the constitutionality of the conditions of his
confinement, he was granted forty-five (45) days leave to amend his Petition to assert any
constitutional claims under § 2241. (Docket Entry# 2 at pgs. 2-3.) Petitioner was advised that if
1

he failed to replead his conditions of confinement claim in a timely manner, the Petition would

be dismissed without prejudice. More than forty-five days have elapsed and Petitioner has failed
to respond to the court's order.
Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October
I J,
2011

N}CHOLAS G. GARAUFIS
United States District Judge

2