Castillo-DeLeon v. Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons - BOP Central Office
Filing
10
Order The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is granted in part, to the extent that Castillo-DeLeon shall be entitled to 561 days of jail-time credit. As set forth in the Court's 9/24/2012 Memorandum of Opinion and Order, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is otherwise dismissed. A hearing on the matter is not necessary. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 10/30/2012. (S,L)
(4:12cv00186)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JAVIER CASTILLO-DeLEON,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU
OF PRISONS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:12CV00186
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Javier Castillo-DeLeon’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The Court initially reviewed the matter
and dismissed the Petition, in part, vis-a-vis a Memorandum of Opinion and Order1 filed on
September 24, 2012. ECF No. 4. Specifically, the Court rejected Castillo-DeLeon’s claims that:
(1) he is entitled to 18 U.S.C. § 3585 credit for the period in which he was also credited for the
service of his state probation violation sentence (ECF No. 4 at 5-6); (2) his sentence
commencement date should be January 2, 2009, the date he was taken into official custody,
instead of August 31, 2010, the date he was sentenced (ECF No. 4 at 6-7); and (3) he is entitled
to a nunc pro tunc designation for partial service of his federal sentence. ECF No. 4 at 7-8. With
respect to Castillo-DeLeon’s remaining claim, namely, that he was improperly awarded only 365
days of jail-time credit even though National Inmate Appeals Administrator Harrell Watts had
determined he was entitled to § 3585 credit for the period from February 16, 2009, to August 30,
1
The September 24, 2012 Memorandum of Opinion and Order contains a recitation of the
relevant procedural facts at ECF No. 4 at 2-4.
(4:12cv00186)
2010 (ECF No. 4 at 4), the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why a Writ of Habeas
Corpus should not consequently issue. ECF No. 4 at 8-9.
On October 29, 2012, Respondent filed a Response together with the declaration of
Dennis Melick, a management analyst at the Designation and Sentence Computation Center
located in Grand Prairie, Texas. ECF Nos. 9 and 9-1. Respondent acknowledged that it had
made an error in the computation of Castillo-DeLeon’s jail-time credit. Respondent stated that
Appeals Administrator Watts indeed had determined that Castillo-DeLeon was entitled to credit
from February 16, 2009, to August 30, 2010, and, therefore, Watts and the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) incorrectly indicated that Castillo-DeLeon was entitled to only 365 days of credit. ECF
No. 9 at 6. Consequently, Respondent takes the position that the Petition should be granted, in
part, to allow Castillo-DeLeon to receive 561 days of jail-time credit. ECF No. 9 at 6.
Based on the foregoing, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART,
to the extent that Castillo-DeLeon shall be entitled to 561 days of jail-time credit. As set forth in
the Court’s September 24, 2012 Memorandum of Opinion and Order, the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus is otherwise DISMISSED. A hearing on the matter is not necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 30, 2012
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
2
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?