U.S. v. Soto

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JORGE LUIS SOTO, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Apr 20, 2005

No. 01 Cr. 862 (GEL) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2005)

Opinion

No. 01 Cr. 862 (GEL).

April 20, 2005

OPINION AND ORDER

GERARD E. LYNCH, District Judge

On September 19, 2002, Jorge Luis Soto was sentenced primarily to 46 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute heroin. Now serving his sentence, he moves the Court in papers filed pro se to "correct [his] current status" in prison. The motion must be denied.

While it is not entirely clear what Soto complains of, it appears that he objects that his "Unit Team" in the Bureau of Prisons has "suggest[ed] the placing of an [i]mmigration . . . detainer" against him. (Motion at 1.) Soto appears to believe that he is not subject to deportation, noting that he "has resided in this country for over 13 years," and "his entire family resides in the United States." (Id.) Thus, Soto requests that this Court "intercede in this case," and advise the Bureau of Prisons that any classification of him as potentially deportable "should be left to the Immigration and Naturalization Service." (Id. at 2.)

Neither Soto's immigration status nor his treatment by the Bureau of Prisons is within the jurisdiction of this Court. The above-captioned case terminated with the entry of judgment. While this Court would have jurisdiction over a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, such a petition is only appropriate to challenge the legality of his sentence, not the conditions of his confinement or his classification or treatment by the Bureau of Prisons. Adams v. United States, 372 F. 3d 132 (2d Cir. 2004). Under certain circumstances, decisions of the Bureau of Prisons can be challenged in court by other means, including suits for violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and petitions for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Such actions, however, require exhaustion of administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons, and are properly brought by an independent action against the appropriate prison officials in the district in which the prisoner is confined, not by resort to the court in which the prisoner was originally convicted.

Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested, and Soto's motion is denied.

SO ORDERED.