Opinion
CV-22-01365-DWL-ESW
03-30-2023
Steven Vue, Petitioner, v. R.A. Heisner, Warden, Respondent.
TO THE HONORABLE DOMINIC W. LANZA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable Eileen S. Willett, United States Magistrate Judge.
Steven Vue (“Petitioner”) is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Arizona for service of a 120-month sentence that was imposed in a federal criminal case in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the “District of Minnesota”). Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Amended “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (the “Amended Petition”) (Doc. 4). Petitioner asserts that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) incorrectly determined the amount of credit for time served when computing his sentence. For the reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny the Amended Petition (Doc. 4).
I. BACKGROUND
In 2019 and 2020, Petitioner was charged with crimes in the State of Minnesota, the State of California, and the District of Minnesota.
On February 28, 2019, the State of Minnesota arrested Petitioner and released him on March 2, 2019 pending investigation. (Doc. 11-1 at 13). On March 12, 2020, the State of Minnesota filed a criminal complaint against Petitioner charging him with aiding and abetting first degree drug possession, aiding and abetting first degree drug sale, and fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle. (Doc. 11-1 at 14; Attachment 1). The State of Minnesota dismissed the case on March 24, 2021 (following Petitioner's conviction in the District of Minnesota on March 2, 2021 that is discussed below). (Doc. 11-1 at 31).
On May 24, 2019, the State of California arrested Petitioner on numerous charges. (Doc. 11-1 at 16-17). Petitioner pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon and admitted to having a prior felony conviction. (Id. at 17). On June 13, 2019, the State of California sentenced Petitioner to a four-year prison term. (Id. at 18).
In August 2019, while Petitioner was serving his California state court sentence, Petitioner was indicted in the District of Minnesota on (i) one count of Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846 and (ii) Possession with the Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). (Attachment 2). On October 23, 2019, the District of Minnesota issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum so that Petitioner could be transported from the California Correctional Center and retained in federal custody until final disposition of the federal charges. (Attachment 3). The executed arrest warrant indicates that the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) took custody of Petitioner on December 13, 2019. (Attachment 4). The District of Minnesota held Petitioner's initial appearance and arraignment hearings on December 13, 2019. (Attachment 5). The District of Minnesota granted the United States' motion for detention and committed Petitioner to the custody of the Attorney General pending trial. (Attachment 6).
Petitioner states that the USMS took custody of him on November 19, 2019. (Doc. 4 at 4). Attached to Respondent's Answer is a declaration by a BOP management analyst. (Doc. 11-1). The declaration states “On November 19, 2019, while in California state custody, Petitioner was ‘borrowed' by the United States Marshals Service (USMS) pursuant to a Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum . . . .” (Id. at 3, ¶ 8). Yet the document cited to support this statement only states that on December 13, 2019, Petitioner was produced to the District of Minnesota via writ for an initial appearance. (Id. at 13). The Court, however, need not determine which date is correct as the State of California gave Petitioner credit towards his state sentence for the time he was in federal custody. The discussion below explains that because the time Petitioner spent in federal custody was credited towards his California state court sentence, the BOP properly did not credit that time towards Petitioner's federal sentence.
On February 15, 2021, California released Petitioner to post-release community supervision. (Doc. 11-1 at 20). The California Department of Corrections notified the District of Minnesota and requested that the California Department of Corrections' detainer of Petitioner be released effective February 15, 2021. (Id. at 19).
In October 2020, Petitioner entered into a plea agreement in the District of Minnesota in which Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine. The District of Minnesota accepted the plea agreement, and on March 2, 2021, sentenced Petitioner to 120 months in prison. (Doc. 11-1 at 23-29).
In calculating Petitioner's projected release date, the BOP used March 2, 2021 as the date Petitioner's federal sentence began. (Id. at 11). The BOP determined that Petitioner is entitled to seventeen days of credit for time served, from February 28, 2019 through March 2, 2019 and from February 16, 2021 through March 1, 2021. (Id.).
In August 2022, Petitioner initiated this § 2241 proceeding. (Doc. 1). Petitioner filed the Amended Petition (Doc. 4) in October 2022, which the Court screened and allowed to proceed (Doc. 5). Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to credit for the length of time spent in federal custody awaiting disposition of Petitioner's District of Minnesota case. Petitioner asserts that he was taken into custody of the USMS on November 19, 2019. (Doc. 4 at 4). Noting that his federal sentence began on March 2, 2021, Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to more than 400 additional days of credit. (Id.). The Government has answered the Amended Petition. (Doc. 11). Petitioner has not filed a Reply, and the time to do so has passed.
II. DISCUSSION
“The authority to calculate a federal inmate's sentence is delegated to the Attorney General, who exercises it through BOP.” Kenny v. Sanders, 713 F.Supp.2d 989, 990 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (citing United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-35 (1992)). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a), a federal sentence commences “on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to . . . the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served.” However, “18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) allows the BOP to grant a federal prisoner credit for time spent in state or federal custody before imposition of his federal sentence, but only if that term of pre-sentence imprisonment ‘has not been credited against another sentence.'” Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1245 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original).
When a state prisoner is transferred to federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, the prisoner “is considered to be ‘on loan' to the federal authorities so that the sending state's jurisdiction over the accused continues uninterruptedly. Failure to release a prisoner does not alter that ‘borrowed' status, transforming a state prisoner into a federal prisoner.” Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Crawfordv. Jackson, 589 F.2d 693, 695 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
Here, the BOP correctly determined that Petitioner's federal sentence commenced on March 2, 2021, the date the District of Minnesota imposed its sentence. (Doc. 11-1 at 11). The days that Petitioner spent in federal custody pursuant to the Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum were credited towards his California state sentence. The State of California released Petitioner on February 15, 2021. (Id. at 19-20). As a result, the BOP correctly determined that Petitioner is entitled to credit for the fourteen days from and including February 16, 2021 through March 1, 2021 (the day before his federal sentence began). (Doc. 11-1 at 11). The BOP also gave Petitioner credit for the three days spent in the custody of the State of Minnesota (from February 28, 2019 through March 2, 2019) in relation to the state court case that was dismissed. See Wilson, 503 U.S. at 337 (“Congress made clear [in Section 3585 (b)] that a defendant could not receive a double credit for his detention time.”); Lay v. Gill, 575 Fed. App'x 816 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding time spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum could not be credited towards defendant's federal sentence as the record reflected that the credits earned during that period were applied to the defendant's state sentence). The undersigned finds that Petitioner's claim challenging the BOP's computation of his sentence fails on the merits. It is therefore recommended that the Court deny the Amended Petition.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court deny the Amended Petition (Doc. 4).
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied.
This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.