Vincent v. Western District Court of United States
Filing
3
DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Signed by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge U.S.D.C. on 10/18/2011. (CMD)
-PSO-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PATRICK L. VINCENT, 17360-055,
Petitioner,
DECISION and ORDER
11-CV-581S(M)
-vWESTERN DISTRICT COURT OF UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
Petitioner Patrick L. Vincent was sentenced by this Court in August 2010 to
an 84-month term of imprisonment1 and currently is confined at the McKean Federal
Correctional Institution in Bradford, Pennsylvania. He brings this petition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the computation of his sentence. For the reasons
that follow, this case will be transferred to the United States District Court for the
W estern District of Pennsylvania.
“Under § 2241, a prisoner may challenge the 'execution of [his] sentence,' .
. . such as calculations by the Bureau of Prisons of the credit to be given for other
periods of detention, or decisions to deny parole, . . . or conditions of confinement."
Poindexter v. Nash, 333 F.3d 372, 377 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Chambers v. United
States, 106 F.3d 472, 474-75 (2d Cir. 1997); Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146
(2d Cir.2001); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n. 5 (2d Cir.1991)).
1
See United States of America v. Vincent, 08-CR-197S.
Here, petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence, viz., the
calculation by the Bureau of Prisons of the credit to be given for nine months home
detention before the commencement of his sentence. It is well-established that a
challenge to the execution of a federal sentence, such as "the administration of
parole, computation of a prisoner's sentence by prison officials, prison disciplinary
actions, prison transfers, type of detention and prison conditions," must be filed in
the district of incarceration. See Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d at 146 (citing Chambers
v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474-75 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also Rodriguez v. United
States, 08-3360, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92884, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2010)
(where petitioner was challenging the execution of his sentence, “viz. the calculation
by the Bureau of Prisons of the credit to be given for time served in the custody of
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement prior to the commencement
of his federal sentence,” he was required to bring his claim as a petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, and file it in the district of confinement).
Inasmuch as Vincent’s petition contends only that his sentence has been
improperly computed as a result of denying him credit for home detention, the Court
finds that his challenge relates to the execution of his sentence and must be filed in
the W estern District of Pennsylvania, the district where he is incarcerated. See
Palozie v. Bledsoe, 3:06cv761(W W E), 206 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33807 (D. Conn. May
26, 2006) (where petitioner sentenced in Connecticut contended that Bureau of
Prisons officials improperly computed his sentence by denying him jail time credit,
2
his challenge related to the execution of his sentence and his § 2241 petition was
transferred to the Southern District of Illinois, where he was incarcerated).
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this case to the
United States District Court for the W estern District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a) (permitting a district court, in the interest of justice, to transfer a case to
a district in which it could have been brought).
SO ORDERED
Dated:
October 18, 2011
Buffalo, New York
s/William M. Skrenty
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Chief Judge
United States District Court
3
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?