Opinion
CR 121-077-01
06-13-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RODRIQUEZ JAMES HALL
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
At present, Defendant Rodriquez James Hall complains that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has not properly credited him with the time he spent in custody from his federal arrest to the date of sentencing. (Doc. 75.)
A judicial challenge to the BOP's length of sentence determination must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of the defendant's confinement. See Rumsfield v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (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."); Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991). Here, Defendant is incarcerated in the District of South Carolina. Accordingly, this Court is without authority to consider Defendant's motion.
In his reply brief, Defendant recognizes that his remedy lies in a § 2241 petition if the BOP has miscalculated his time. He insists that he simply wants the Court to "state its position" since "the original intentions of the Court [are] ambiguous." There is no ambiguity in this case. The Judgment and Commitment Order expressly states that the federal term of imprisonment shall be served "concurrently with the unrelated state sentence in Richmond County Superior Court, Docket Number 2016-RCCR-1725." (Doc. 56, at 2.) Defendant now has a court order restating the Court's clear intent.
Upon the foregoing, the Government's motion to dismiss Defendant's "Motion for Assistance" is GRANTED. (Doc. 74.) The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE Defendant's "Motion for Assistance." (Doc. 73.)