CONTANT v. LINDSAY

Filing 8

ORDER re ECF No. 2 , Order directing Answer to the Petition for Habeas Corpus; re ECF No. 4 , Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by ISAN CONTANT; and re ECF No. 6 , Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by ISAN CONTANT: Petitioner's Moti on for Response Time Reduction, ECF No. 6 is GRANTED in part, to the extent that the Order of Court entered September 28, 2011, ECF No. 2 is hereby MODIFIED to require that the Respondent file his Answer by November 2, 2011, rather than 60 days f rom date of being served with the petition. Further, Respondent is ordered to file a response to Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 4 by by 11/2/2011. The parties are permitted to file an appeal to the District Judge by November 1, 2011. Any appeal will not act as a stay of this order unless otherwise ordered by the District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 10/25/2011. A copy of this order is being sent to Petitioner at his address of record and to the U.S. Attorney's Office by mail as well as being hand delivered to the U.S. Attorney's Office today. (tmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ISAN CONTANT,
Petitioner,
vs.
CAMERON LINDSAY, Warden,
Moshannon Valley Correctional Center,
Respondent.

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 11-204J
) Judge Kim R. Gibson/
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Isan Contant (“Petitioner”) is incarcerated at Moshannon Valley Correctional Institution
(“MVCC”), currently serving a criminal sentence for immigration violations. He has a projected
release date of December 21, 2011. He has filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(“Section 2241 Petition”), complaining that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has improperly
calculated his sentence and denied him credit of about 45 days against his sentence to which
Petitioner claims entitlement. Specifically, Petitioner claims that he was entitled to credit from
November 1, 2010, the date upon which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents
detained Petitioner until December 15, 2010, the date whereon he was criminally indicted in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (“the Sentencing Court”).
Petitioner initiated the present Section 2241 proceedings on September 9, 2011, when he filed his
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. [1]. In the Section 2241
Petition, he points out that if his calculations are correct, he should actually be released from his
sentence as of November 7, 2011, which is roughly 45 days prior to his actual projected release
date of December 21, 2011. The Court granted the IFP motion on September 28, 2011, and in

that same order, directed that service be made on the Respondent, and required that the
Respondent file an answer within 60 days of being served.
On October 11, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, ECF
No. [4] and a Brief in Support. ECF No. [5]. In addition, Petitioner filed a “Motion for
Response Time Reduction”, ECF No. [6], requesting that the Respondent be made to answer
more quickly than 60 days because 60 days after September 28, 2011 would be roughly
November 28, 2011, which would be nearly three weeks after his sentence should have ended
according to Petitioner’s calculations.
In light of the foregoing the following order is entered,
AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2011, Petitioner’s Motion for Response Time
Reduction, ECF No. [6], is GRANTED to the extent that the Court’s order of September 28,
2011 is hereby modified as follows: rather than the Respondent being directed to file an answer
within 60 days of being served, the Respondent is hereby directed to file an answer to the Section
2241 Petition by November 2, 2011. In addition to whatever else the Respondent wishes to
raise, the Answer shall address the merits of the Section 2241 Petition, especially the significance
of Galan-Paredes v. Hogsten, No. 1:CV-06-1730, 2007 WL 30329 (M.D. Pa. June 3, 2007);
Reyes-Ortiz v. Schultz, Civ.No. 08-6386, 2009 WL 4510131 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2009); and De
Paz-Salvador v. Holt, No. 3:10-CV-2668, 2011 WL 3876268 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2011) and
Respondent shall provide any evidence as to when ICE made a decision that Petitioner’s case
was appropriate for criminal prosecution. It is further ORDERED that Respondent shall file a
response to Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief as well by November 2, 2011.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72,
2

the parties are allowed until November 1, 2011,1 to file an appeal to the District Judge. Any
appeal will not act to stay this order unless otherwise ordered by the District Judge.

s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
United States Magistrate Judge

cc:

Isan Contant
69740-067
Moshannon Valley Correctional Center
555 Geo Drive
Philipsburg, PA 16866
United States Attorney
Attention: Mike Comber
US Post Office/Courthouse
700 Grant Street
Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219

Even though typically, parties are given at least 14 days in which to file an appeal, in light of
the time sensitive nature of the proceedings, the Court has exercised its discretion to shorten the
time period for filing an appeal. See, e.g., Moreno v. Martin, No. 08-22432-CIV, 2008 WL
4716958, at *26 (S.D.Fla., Oct. 23, 2008) (“the Court will exercise its discretion to shorten the
normally applicable 10-day period to file objections to a U.S. Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation where exigent circumstances exist.”).
3
1