Opinion
1:02-cr-00046-JPH-MJD-01
04-19-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JESSE T. BUCHANAN, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF JUDGMENT
James Patrick Hanlon, United States District Judge.
Defendant Jesse T. Buchanan is a federal prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. Mr. Buchanan, by counsel, filed a "Motion for Clarification of Judgment in a Criminal Case" arguing that if his Federal Time Credits are properly applied to his sentence, he is eligible for immediate release from prison. Dkt. 134. He asks the Court to make factual findings and to Order the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to award the Federal Time Credits that Mr. Buchanan is entitled to receive. Dkt. 134. This motion, dkt. [134], is denied because the relief Mr. Buchanan seeks may only be obtained through the filing of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the district of his confinement.
"A post-judgment motion [in a criminal action in federal court] needs a source of authority for the judge to act ...." United States v. Scott, 414 F.3d 815, 816 (7th Cir. 2005). An inmate can challenge the calculation of his sentence, including time credits, in a § 2241 petition. Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 244 (2012); see e.g., Lane v. Sproul, No. 21-CV-1692-SMY, 2022 WL 16839521, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2022) (ruling on merits of BOP's application of First Step Act of 2018 credits in § 2241 petition). The application for a writ of habeas corpus "may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody..." § 2241(d).
Mr. Buchanan was previously informed that that if he believes that the BOP is miscalculating his sentence, he must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in his district of incarceration. Dkt. 115 at p. 2. His current motion does not explain why his concerns could not be addressed pursuant to § 2241, nor does the motion provide any source of authority for the Court to provide the relief requested. Dkt. 128 at p. 2 ("Appointed counsel is directed to file a renewed motion identifying a viable claim for relief along with the Court's authority to provide the relief requested . . . "). In its response, the United States explains that because Mr. Buchanan challenges the Bureau's award and application of time credits under the First Step Act of 2018, the motion is understood as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 137 at 1.
In the absence of any authority to take the action requested, Mr. Buchanan's motion for clarification of judgment, dkt [134], is denied.
Mr. Buchanan will not be prejudiced by this ruling because he has had the opportunity to raise his claims pursuant to § 2241, in the Eastern District of Michigan, which is the district of his confinement. See Buchanan v. Hemingway, 2:21-cv-10683-VAR-APP. Mr. Buchanan alleged that he is entitled to good time credits on his current sentence under the First Step Act and that the BOP is calculating his different sentences to run consecutively to one another, in violation of the sentencing judge's order. The petitions for writ of habeas corpus were denied. Buchanan v. Hemingway, No. 2:21-CV-10683, 2022 WL 2119537 (E.D. Mich. June 13, 2022). Mr. Buchanan sought reconsideration of that Order, which was also denied. Case No. 2:21-cv-10683 at dkt. 23. His appeal of the denial is pending. Buchanan v. Hemingway, Case No. 22-1710 (6th Cir. 2022). The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in concluding that the BOP accurately recalculated Mr. Buchanan's sentences to reflect the First Step Act's new rules regarding good-conduct credits. Case No. 22-1710 at dkt. 8, page 5. Thus, if any relief is to be provided, it is through a § 2241 petition filed in Mr. Buchanan's district of confinement.
SO ORDERED.