Chaner v. United States of America

Filing 4

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND FORM AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND NOTIFY CLERK OF RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 9/15/22. (skc)

Case 1:22-cv-01140-JDB-jay Document 4 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 3

PageID 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
KEITH CHANER,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:22-cv-01140-JDB-jay
Re: 1:10-cr-10020-JDB-1

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND FORM
AND
DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE AMENDED PETITION
AND NOTIFY CLERK OF RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
The Petitioner, Keith Chaner, has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition (the “Petition”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1.) The Petition is before the Court for
preliminary review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harper v. Thoms, No. 02–5520, 2002 WL 31388736,
at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2002). For the following reasons, Chaner is ORDERED to file an amended
petition and notify the Clerk of his residential address.
In 2011, the undersigned sentenced Petitioner to 168 months’ incarceration and four years
of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. (United States v. Chaner, 1:10-cr-10020-JDB1 (W.D. Tenn.), D.E. 58.) The inmate was released from prison on December 30, 2021, and
immediately began serving his term of supervised release. He filed the Petition on June 30, 2022,
seeking an order directing Respondent, the United States of America, to apply credits under 18
U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4) to shorten the length of his term of supervised release.
A federal criminal defendant’s challenge to the application of sentencing credits is
cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Dowell, 16 F. App'x 415, 420 (6th Cir.

Case 1:22-cv-01140-JDB-jay Document 4 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 3

PageID 13

2001) (“[A] prisoner may seek judicial review of the computation of [his] credit[s] under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241[.]”). “[T]he proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over
[the petitioner.]’” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243). The custodian of an individual who is on federal supervised release is
typically the chief probation officer in the office of United States Probation Services for the district
in which the petitioner resides. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) (“A prisoner whose sentence includes a
term of supervised release after imprisonment shall be released . . . to the supervision of a probation
officer[.]”); 18 U.S.C. § 3602(c) (“If the court appoints more than one probation officer, one may
be designated by the court as chief probation officer and shall direct the work of all probation
officers serving in the judicial district.”). The proper respondent in a § 2241 proceeding brought
by a petitioner on federal supervised release is therefore the chief probation officer overseeing his
supervised release. See United States v. Dohrmann, 36 F. App'x. 879, 881 (9th Cir. 2002) (relevant
custodian for purposes of § 2241 for petitioner on supervised release is the petitioner’s “supervised
release administrator”); Plaskett v. Cruz, Civil No. 2017-67, 2018 WL 9810844, at *1 n.1 (D.V.I.
Nov. 6, 2018) (“[B]ecause [petitioner] is currently on supervised release in St. Croix, United States
Virgin Islands, the only proper respondent is his current custodian, the Chief Probation officer in
the United States Probation Office for the Virgin Islands.”), report and recommendation adopted,
Civil No. 2017-67, 2019 WL 4750221 (D.V.I. Sept. 30, 2019).
Chaner was on supervised release at the time he filed the Petition, and he remains so
currently. His custodian is therefore the chief probation officer from the United States Probation
Services office overseeing his supervised release. The officer is likely located in the district in
which Petitioner resides. The docket in the present matter shows that Chaner has reported his
address as a UPS mailbox in Montgomery, Alabama, which is in the Middle District of Alabama.

2

Case 1:22-cv-01140-JDB-jay Document 4 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 3

PageID 14

See 28 U.S.C. § 81. He has thus not provided the Clerk with the address of an actual place of
residence and he does not indicate if his custodian is located in the Middle District of Alabama or
elsewhere.
Because the record does not clearly establish Petitioner’s supervised release administrator,
Chaner is ORDERED to file an amended petition on the Court’s § 2241 form naming his custodian
as Respondent and indicating the district in which his custodian is located. Petitioner is further
ORDERED to provide the Clerk with his own residential address. The amended petition and the
notification of address are due no later than twenty-eight days from entry of this order. Failure to
comply with this order will result in dismissal of the Petition and this action without further notice.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a § 2241 form.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of September 2022.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3