Opinion
Criminal Action 19-cr-000453-CMA
05-19-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SHAWN JOSEPH BELL, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING RELIEF REQUESTED IN DEFENDANT'S LETTER
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, Senior United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Shawn Joseph Bell's Letter to the Court (Doc. # 62) and the Supplemental Response filed by Mr. Bell's Counsel (Doc. # 68). In Mr. Bell's letter, he appears to object to the Bureau of Prison's calculation of credit for time served as to his federal sentence and seeks advice as to how to address the issue. In the Supplement, Mr. Bell's counsel concedes that this Court lacks geographic jurisdiction to grant Mr. Bell any relief as to credit for time served because Mr. Bell is designated to USP Victorville in the Southern District of California. (Doc. # 68 at 1.) The Government and the United States Probation Office agree that to the extent Mr. Bell seeks any relief before this Court as to the calculation of his credit for time served, this Court must deny his request for lack of jurisdiction. (Docs. ## 64, 69, 70.)
Calculation for credit for time served is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). If a defendant seeks to challenge whether his “federal sentence has been properly executed,” including whether his credit for time served has been correctly calculated, he must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. “A petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 typically ‘attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined.'” Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996)). Because Mr. Bell is confined at USP Victorville in the Southern District of California, any § 2241 petition must be filed in that district.
Accordingly, there is no dispute that this Court lacks jurisdiction to provide Mr. Bell the relief requested in his letter. The Court also notes that Mr. Bell's counsel states that she is working with Mr. Bell to provide him appropriate legal advice.
For these reasons, it is ORDERED that Mr. Bell's request for relief in his letter (Doc. # 62) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.