From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alba-Tovar v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 7, 2006
Civil No. 05-1899-MO (D. Or. Jun. 7, 2006)

Summary

declining to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failing to clearly identify claims after determining that the substance of plaintiff's claim was sufficiently clear

Summary of this case from Langley v. Cnty. of Inyo

Opinion

Civil No. 05-1899-MO.

June 7, 2006


ORDER


This 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus action comes before the court on respondents' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement (#9). Respondents assert that they cannot ascertain the nature of petitioner's claims and ask the court to either: (1) dismiss this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); or (2) require petitioner to file an amended petition which clearly identifies his claims.

DISCUSSION

On December 16, 2005, petitioner, who is proceeding pro se in this case, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus which did not specifically identify any claims. He did, however, use his Petition to reference various attachments which he filed with the Petition. One of the attachments accompanying the form Petition was a document entitled "Petition for Writ of Hebeas (sic) Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241." There, petitioner specifically challenges the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of his credit for time served. He alleges that as recently as March 2, 2005, his sentence computation sheet reflected credit for time served starting from June 29, 2004. However, he was later notified that he would only receive credit for time served beginning on July 27, 2004. Petitioner therefore asks the court to restore the resulting 29 days of credit for time served.

Petitioner is clearly challenging the execution of his sentence in this case, and his claim is sufficiently clear to warrant a response to the issue of whether petitioner is entitled to credit for time served from June 29, 2004. Accordingly, respondents' Motion is denied. They shall answer petitioner's Petition within 20 days.

CONCLUSION

Respondents' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement (#9) is DENIED. Respondents shall file their answer within 20 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Alba-Tovar v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 7, 2006
Civil No. 05-1899-MO (D. Or. Jun. 7, 2006)

declining to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failing to clearly identify claims after determining that the substance of plaintiff's claim was sufficiently clear

Summary of this case from Langley v. Cnty. of Inyo
Case details for

Alba-Tovar v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:OSCAR RENEE ALBA-TOVAR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jun 7, 2006

Citations

Civil No. 05-1899-MO (D. Or. Jun. 7, 2006)

Citing Cases

Langley v. Cnty. of Inyo

(Id. at 9, ¶¶ 25, 27.) The court finds that these allegations are sufficiently clear to provide defendants…