Opinion
3:23-cv-00853-AR
04-17-2024
GUDBERTO ANTONIO ASTORGA, Petitioner, v. ISRAEL JACQUEZ, in his official capacity as Warden at FCI Sheridan, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFF ARMISTEAD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Gudberto Antonio Astorga, an adult in custody at FCI Sheridan and representing himself, challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) calculation of his federal sentence. He contends that he is entitled to 313 days of credit for time served in state custody before commencement of his federal sentence. Because Astorga is not entitled to the relief requested, his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On January 21, 2016, California state authorities arrested Astorga and charged him in Orange County Superior Court with Possession of Methamphetamine for Sale. (Declaration of Veronica Hodge, ECF No. 7 (Hodge Decl.), ¶ 6.) Astorga remained in state pretrial custody until November 29, 2016, when the trial court sentenced him to a two-year term of imprisonment. (Hodge Decl., ¶ 9.) The court credited petitioner with one year for time served and another year for good conduct. (Hodge Decl., ¶ 9 & Attach. 4, p. 2.) Astorga, having received enough credit to satisfy his two-year state imprisonment sentence, was released from state custody to federal custody that same day. (Hodge Decl., ¶ 15 & Attach. 5.)
From March 3, 2016 through March 7, 2016, the United States Marshals Service took Astorga from state custody on a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, that is, a temporary change in Astorga's physical custody for the purposes of appearing in federal court. (Hodge Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8.) This temporary change in Astorga's physical custody, however, did not alter the fact that the State of California retained primary jurisdiction over Astorga. See Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Normally, the sovereign which first arrests an individual acquires priority of jurisdiction for purposes of trial, sentencing, and incarceration.”); Jimenez v. Warden, FDIC, Fort Devens, Mass., 147 F.Supp.2d 24, 28 (D. Mass. 2001) (“It is well established that producing a state prisoner under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to answer federal charges does not relinquish state custody.”).
On March 4, 2019, the United States District Court for the Central District of California sentenced Astorga to a 235-month term of imprisonment on a conviction for Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine and Felon in Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. (Hodge Decl., ¶ 11.) The BOP prepared a sentence computation for Astorga based on a 235-month term of imprisonment commencing on March 4, 2019, and applied prior custody credit from December 2, 2016 through March 3, 2019. That computation resulted in a projected release date of August 11, 2033, via good time credit. (Hodge Decl., ¶ 12.) After Astorga filed this action, the BOP determined that Astorga's prior custody credit should have started on November 30, 2016, and therefore credited Astorga with two more days, so that his projected release date is now August 9, 2033. (Hodge Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5 & Attach. 7 at pp. 1, 3.)
On September 22, 2023, Astorga filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court. Astorga seeks 313 days of credit against his federal sentence for time served in state custody from January 21, 2016 to November 29, 2016.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may grant habeas relief when a petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “A necessary predicate for the granting of federal habeas relief [to a petitioner] is a determination by the federal court that [his] custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241). A § 2241 habeas petition is the appropriate vehicle to challenge the correctness of a jail-time credit determination. Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d 349 (1st Cir. 1999).
DISCUSSION
Federal law grants to the United States Attorney General responsibility for federal sentence computation decisions. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992); United States v. Checchini, 967 F.2d 348, 349 (9th Cir. 1992). The Attorney General has in turn delegated sentence computation to the BOP. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.96.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a), a federal sentence “commences on the date the defendant is received in custody . . . to commence service of sentence[.]” Further, BOP Program Statement 5880.28, Sentence Computation Manual (CCCA of 1984), provides that “in no case can a federal sentence of imprisonment commence earlier than the date on which it is imposed.” BOP Prog. Statement 5880.28 (1992), at pp. 1-13, available at http://www.bop.gov/police/progstat/5880028.pdf. Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) prohibits the BOP from giving credit for presentence time spent in official detention that “has been credited against another sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); see also Lopez v. Terrell, 654 F.3d 176, 184-85 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[B]ecause the defendant's presentence custody has already ‘been credited against another sentence'-namely, the defendant's state sentence-the agency is prohibited from crediting that time against his federal sentence.”).
Astorga cannot prevail on his claim that he is entitled to 313 days of credit for time served in California pretrial custody against his federal sentence. The State of California arrested Astorga on January 21, 2016, acquiring primary jurisdiction over him. Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Astorga received credit against his California state sentence for the 365 days he was in California's primary custody as a pretrial detainee. This period encompasses the 313 days for which Astorga seeks credit against his federal sentence. The BOP is thus prohibited from applying credit for this time against Astorga's federal sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(b); BOP Program Statement 5880.28; see also Wilson, 503 U.S. at 337 (“Congress [in Section 3585(b)] made clear that a defendant could not receive a double credit for his detention time.”).
Because Astorga remained in California's primary jurisdiction between January 21, 2016 and November 29, 2016, and because he received credit toward his state sentence for that time, the BOP was correct in declining to award Astorga prior custody credit. Accordingly, Astorga is not entitled to habeas corpus relief in this court.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Astorga's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be DENIED, and a judgment of dismissal should be entered.
SCHEDULING ORDER
The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due within fourteen days. If no objections are filed, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, a response is due within fourteen days. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.