Opinion
04 CR 0515 (SJ)
03-29-2016
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Following a jury trial, Raul Adames ("Adames" or "Defendant") was found guilty of importing cocaine and distributing at least 5 kilograms of cocaine. (See Docket Number ("Dkt. No.") 466.) On August 27, 2008, Judge David G. Trager sentenced Defendant to 132 months of incarceration. (Dkt. Nos. 465, 466.) Adames is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Jesup, Georgia. (Dkt. No. 573.) Currently before the court is Defendant's request for credit for time served. Adames contends that he was not awarded credit for his time in custody from January 15, 2008 until August 26, 2008. Defendant's Motion ("Deft. Mo.") at 2. For the reasons explained more fully below, Defendant's request is dismissed without prejudice.
As an initial matter, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Defendant's request because he is incarcerated within the Southern District of Georgia. See Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 473-475; Rodriguez v. United States, 2010 WL 3603621, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2010); Velasco v. United States, 1992 WL 135029, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 28, 1992); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 437 (2004) ("Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.").
Even assuming Adames could bring his claim within the Eastern District of New York, he is first required to exhaust the administrative process for this claim, see Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 634 (2d Cir. 2001); United States v. Whaley, 148 F.3d 205, 207 (2d Cir. 1998); United States v. Pineyro, 112 F.3d 43, 45-46 (2d Cir. 1997), which he failed to do. (See Sworn Declaration of Agent Vincent E. Shaw, Dkt. No. 574 Attachment #1 ("Shaw Decl.") ¶¶ 12-19.)
Finally, although this Court need not address the merits of Defendant's challenge, the Bureau of Prisons has awarded him a total of 227 days credit for time served, including his prior time in custody from January 15, 2008 until August 26, 2008, therefore, Defendant's motion is moot. (See Shaw Decl. p. 12.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant's motion is dismissed without prejudice. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 29, 2016
Brooklyn, NY
/s/_________
STERLING JOHNSON, JR.
Senior United States District Judge