Opinion
24-CV-1251 (LTS)
05-01-2024
WILLY SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. WARDEN AT F.C.I. HAZELTON, Respondent.
ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
By letter dated January 22, 2024, Petitioner asserted that, with respect to his conviction in United States v. Sanchez, ECF 1:19-CR-0360, 123 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2024), he is entitled to relief pursuant to Amendment 821. (ECF No.1 at 2.) Petitioner also asserted that he is entitled to relief pursuant to “Amendment 817 safety valve provision by amending 5C1.2 under the First Step Act (FSA).” (Id.) Petitioner requested that the court “assign this case to the public defend[sic] office for reviewer and legal assistance.” (Id.)
Plaintiff writes using irregular capitalization. For readability, the Court uses standard capitalization when quoting from the complaint. All other spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless otherwise indicated.
By order dated February 16, 2024, the Honorable Kimba M. Wood, of this court, construed Petitioner's letter, filed in United States v. Sanchez, ECF 1:19-CR-0360, 123 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 29, 2024), as a motion for reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Sanchez, ECF 1:19-CR-0360, 123 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2024). Judge Wood found Petitioner ineligible for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), denied Petitioner's request for counsel, and to the extent that Petitioner sought relief pursuant to the First Step Act, directed the Clerk of Court to open Petitioner's letter as a new civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. The Clerk of Court opened the letter as a new civil action, as directed by Judge Wood, and assigned the above referenced docket number to this action.
By order dated February 21, 2024, the Court directed Petitioner, within 30 days, to (1) either pay the $5.00 fee or, to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”); and (2) complete and sign a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 2.)
An application to proceed IFP and a form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 were included with the Court's February 21, 2024 order.
In response to the Court's order, Petitioner filed a “motion for complete definite statement.” (ECF No. 3.) In his motion, Petitioner requests that the Court “be more specific, ordering petitioner, to file a (2241) and on which grounds under the First Step Act the petitioner qualified for the relief.” (Id.)
DISCUSSION
A. The First Step Act
Under the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), P.L. 115-391, an eligible prisoner “who successfully completes evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities” and who is “determined by the [BOP] to be at a minimum or low risk for recidivating” shall earn 15 days of time credits for every 30 days of successful participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities. See Cohen v. United States, No. 20-CV-10833 (JGK), 2021 WL 1549917, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2021) (relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A)).
In Cohen, No. 20-CV-10833 (JGK), 2021 WL 1549917, at *2, the district court agreed with the government that “the BOP is not required to provide evidence-based recidivism reduction programing and productive activities for all prisoners, or calculate or apply time credits earned, until January 15, 2022.”
The proper vehicle for a challenge to the BOP's calculation of earned time credit is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g., Frazer v. Petrucci, No. 19-CV-0865 (JGK), 2019 WL 5887302, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2019) (“To the extent that the petitioner attacks the BOP's calculations of [earned-conduct time credit] as inconsistent with the [FSA], . . . habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the correct vehicle.”).
Generally, “home confinement satisfies [Section] 2241(c)'s ‘in custody' requirement.” McLean v. United States, 3:20-CV-0439, 2020 WL 5095585, at *4 n.3 (W.D. N.C. Aug. 28, 2020).
The Court makes no determination regarding Petitioner's eligibility for relief under the FSA, and the Court is not permitted to advise Petitioner as to the grounds he should raise in any petition that he seeks to file. Because Petitioner, by his January 22, 2024 letter, seemed to indicate that he was seeking relief under the FSA, Judge Kimba Wood directed that this new action be opened for Petitioner to pursue such relief.
B. Requirements to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus
To proceed with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court, a petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or, to request authorization to proceed IFP, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. If Petitioner wishes to seek relief under the FSA, he must (1) file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and (2) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed IFP.
Petitioner did not submit the fee or a completed IFP application with his letter. Within thirty days of the date of this order, if Petitioner wishes to seek habeas corpus relief pursuant to the FSA, he must either pay the $5.00 fee or complete and submit the attached IFP application. If Petitioner submits the IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 24-CV-1251 (LTS) . If the Court grants the IFP application, Petitioner will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of the $5.00 fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
C. Instructions for Submitting a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242, an “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf. It shall allege the facts concerning the applicant's commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of what claim or authority, if known.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242.
Petitioner's submission does not allege facts concerning his commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him, or why he believes he is entitled to relief under the FSA. The Court therefore directs Petitioner to (1) complete and sign the attached petition form; and (2) include his grounds for relief under the FSA. If Petitioner needs assistance completing his petition, the Court suggest that Petitioner seek assistance from the law library at the facility where he is incarcerated.
If Petitioner does not wish to pursue relief under the FSA, he need not respond to this order, and in 30 days, the case will be dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to comply with this order.
D. Venue
In order to entertain a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a court must have jurisdiction over the custodian. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973) (writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seek relief, but upon his or her custodian). Thus, the jurisdiction of a habeas petition challenging a petitioner's physical confinement generally lies in the district of his confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004).
Because Petitioner is currently incarcerated at FCI Hazelton in Bruceton Mills (Preston County), West Virginia, which is located in the judicial district of the United States District Court for Northern District of West Virginia, see 28 U.S.C. § 129(a), his petition under Section 2241 should be filed in the Northen District of West Virginia. If Petitioner files his petition in this district, the Court will likely transfer it to the Northern District of West Virginia, where Petitioner is incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
CONCLUSION
If Petitioner wishes to pursue relief under the FSA, the Court directs Petitioner, within 30 days of the date of this order, to (1) pay the $5.00 fee or submit the attached IFP application; and (2) complete and sign the attached Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and return it to the court's Pro Se Intake Unit.
No answer shall be required at this time. If Petitioner complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk's Office. If Petitioner fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue).
SO ORDERED.