Espinosa-Mondragon v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Filing
4
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Petitioner's petition. An appeal from this decision may not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 9/24/15. (K,C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
RAUL ESPINOSA-MONDRAGON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondent.
CASE NO. 4:14CV2133
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Before the court is pro se petitioner Raul Espinosa-Mondragon=s above-captioned petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. Petitioner claims that the Bureau of
Prisons has erred in his sentence calculation by failing to give him credit discussed by his
sentencing judge. The Court finds no error.
Background
Petitioner was arrested on September 30, 2011 and charged with illegal re-entry. He was
sentenced to a term of 36 months for that charge. While serving that sentence, Petitioner was also
indicted for smuggling cash into the country and sentenced to 60 months. During that sentencing,
the sentencing judge stated: AThat the Bureau of Prisons shall determine when you were first
arrested for the crime to which you been convicted in this Court today, and it is the Court=s
intention that your sentence run from the time that you have been in continuous custody since an
arrest for the crime for which you were convicted.@
Based upon that statement, Petitioner has
sought through the administrative process to achieve some reduction in his total sentence of 96
months. Petitioner has obtained no relief through the administrative process.
This matter is before the Court for initial screening. 28 U.S.C. ' 2243; Harper v. Thoms,
2002 WL 31388736, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2002). At this stage, allegations in the petition are
taken as true and liberally construed in petitioner=s favor. Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292, 295 (6th
Cir. 2001). As Espinosa-Mondragon is appearing pro se, his petition is held to less stringent
standards than those drafted by attorneys. Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir.2003); Hahn
v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 715 (6th Cir.1999). For the reasons set forth below, however, the
petition lacks merit.
The entirety of Petitioner=s claim rests upon his improper interpretation of the
above-quoted sentence from his sentencing hearing. Petitioner contends that the sentence quoted
above mandates that some portion of his second sentence run concurrent with his initial 36-month
sentence. However, in so doing, Petitioner fails to inform the Court that he requested clarification
of this aspect of his sentence directly from his sentencing judge. On May 12, 2014, in an order
denying Petitioner=s motion to amend his judgment, the sentencing court stated: AAt the time of
sentencing, the Court was well aware of Espinosa-Mondragon=s previous federal case. Had the
Court intended for Espinosa-Mondragon=s 60-month sentence to run concurrent with his 36-month
sentence, the Court would have stated so in the judgment.@ As such, the sentencing court has
made clear that it intended for the sentences to run consecutively. Accordingly, there is no basis
for the relief sought by Petitioner herein.
Moreover, to the extent that Petitioner suggests that there are alternative methods to
calculate his sentence based on the singular sentence quoted from his sentencing hearing, he also
2
ignores that he was never arrested for the smuggling offense. At the time he was indicted,
Petitioner was already in federal custody due to his illegal re-entry indictment and conviction.
Accordingly, there exists no arrest date that could be utilized to alter the computation of
Petitioner=s sentence.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner=s petition is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2243.
The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not
be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 24, 2015
/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?