Opinion
Case No.: 2:18-cr-055-APG-GWF
12-07-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. CEMONE CHAMPAGNE LEWIS, Defendant
Order Denying Second Motion for Adjustment of Time Credit
[ECF No. 85]
Defendant Cemone Champagne Lewis filed a motion requesting that I recalculate his prison time to credit him with time he spent in custody prior to sentencing. ECF No. 85. This is the second time Mr. Lewis has requested this relief. See ECF No. 66. I denied his previous request because I do not have the authority to grant prison credit times. See ECF No. 71. Rather, that authority belongs to the Bureau of Prisons. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-335 (1992); United States v Checchini, 967 F.2d 348, 349-350 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Wilson).
Mr. Lewis is represented by counsel in this case. Thus, he is not permitted to file a motion pro se. See Local Rule IA 11-6(a) ("Unless the court orders otherwise, a party who has appeared by attorney cannot while so represented appear or act in the case."). --------
In my prior order, I told Mr. Lewis that he must first pursue his administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons. ECF No. 71. His motion does not contain any evidence or information showing that he has done so. I also pointed out that, after exhausting his administrative remedies, the proper way for him to challenge the duration of his confinement is through a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991). And I told Mr. Lewis that a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district in which he is in custody, rather than in this court. ECF No. 71.
I THEREFORE ORDER that Mr. Lewis's motion for adjustment of time credit (ECF No. 85) is denied without prejudice because I lack the authority to grant it.
DATED this 7th day of December, 2020.
/s/_________
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE