Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:03-CV-1133-Y
January 8, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER
This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a federal prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
B. PARTIES
Petitioner Roosevelt Anderson, Reg. No. 08792-035, is a federal prisoner who is currently incarcerated in the Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, Texas.
The Respondent is L. E. Fleming, Warden of the Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, Texas.
C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 3, 1994, Anderson was arrested by local authorities in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in excess of 400 grams. (Federal Pet. at 1-2; Resp't Appendix at Ex. A.) On May 29, 1994, Anderson was sentenced in the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, to a term of 15 years' confinement. (Appendix A. at 1.) Thereafter, he was transferred to the custody of the United States Marshals Service and charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. (Id.) On November 15, 1996, Anderson was sentenced to 207 months' imprisonment on the conspiracy charge, the sentence "to run concurrently with any other sentence" Anderson was then serving. (Federal Petition at 1-2; Pet'r Mem. in Support 2 attach.) The Bureau of Prisons subsequently issued a Nunc Proc Tunc Order designating the Louisiana Department of Corrections for service of Anderson's federal sentence to allow his federal sentence to commence on the date of imposition. (Resp't Appendix at Ex. A.) On July 19, 2001, Anderson was released from his state sentence to federal custody to serve the remainder of his federal sentence. (Id.)
By way of the instant petition, Anderson disputes the Bureau of Prisons's sentence computation calculation. According to Anderson, he is entitled to "880 days jail time credit for all the time he served in state custody and pretrial confinement awaiting federal prosecution." (Pet'r Mem. in Support at 3.) Anderson pursued his claim through the prison administrative appeals process to no avail. At each level of the administrative appeals process, it was determined that Anderson's sentence was computed in accordance with applicable statutes and Bureau of Prisons policy. (Id.)
Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Anderson filed the instant habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division. The action was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, by order dated August 25, 2003, and thereafter transferred to this court by order dated September 15, 2003. The government has filed a motion to dismiss with supporting documentary exhibits, to which Anderson has not timely replied.
D. DISCUSSION
In its motion to dismiss, the government contends the petition should be dismissed because Anderson has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The government has provided proof that Anderson received presentence credit toward his federal sentence for the period of time from January 3, 1994, the date of his arrest, through May 23, 1994, the day prior to sentencing in state court. (Pet'r Mem. in Support at Attach.; Resp't Appendix at Ex. 1.) (Pet'r Mem. in Support at Attach.) The government argues that Anderson is not entitled to any further prior custody credit than that which he has already received. (Resp't Mot. to Dismiss at 2-9.)
18 U.S.C. § 3585, entitled "Calculation of a term of imprisonment," provides:
(a) Commencement of sentence. — A sentence to a term of imprisonment commences on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of sentence at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served.
(b) Credit for prior custody. — A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences —
(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or
(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested after the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; that has not been credited against another sentence.
Notwithstanding the limitation imposed under § 3585(b), pursuant to Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1971), where a defendant's state sentence runs concurrently with a longer federal sentence, time spent in presentence state custody attributable to the federal offense must be credited toward time served on a federal sentence even if the defendant was given credit on his state sentence for that period of time. See Chaplin v. United States, 451. F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1971); Radcliffe v. Clark, 451 F.2d 250, 252 (5th Cir. 1971); Willis, 438 F.2d at 925.
Applying § 3585 and Willis to the instant case, Anderson's federal sentence began on November 15, 1996. Anderson is not entitled to credit for the period of May 24, 1994 through November 14, 1996. During that time he was actually serving his state sentence for an offense unrelated to the federal charge and he received credit against his state sentence for the relevant period of incarceration. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1971). The government has shown that Anderson received presentence credit for the period of January 3, 1994, the date of his arrest, through May 23, 1994, the day prior to sentencing in state court, in accordance with Willis. Thus, the government is correct in its assertion that Anderson has received all presentence credit toward his federal sentence to which he is entitled.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is recommended that the government's motion to dismiss be GRANTED to the extent that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED.
III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten (10) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The court is extending the deadline within which to file specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation until January 29, 2004. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual finding or legal conclusion accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc op. on reh'g); Carter v. Collins, 918 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1990).IV. ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that each party is granted until January 29, 2004, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, a response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.