Opinion
18-10062-02-EFM
10-13-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN MONTOYA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ERIC F. MELGREN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Carolyn Montoya's Motion for Clarification Pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018 (Doc. 121). She asserts that she is entitled to “earned time credit” and wants clarification as to why she is ineligible for the First Step Act. The government contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant's motion.
If a defendant is challenging the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) computation of good-time credits, the defendant must file a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In addition, “a federal prisoner generally must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition.” Finally, a motion under § 2241 must be filed in the judicial district in which the defendant is incarcerated.
United States v. Yates, 2019 WL 1779773, at *2 (D. Kan. 2019) (citing Warren v. United States, 707 Fed.Appx. 509, 511 n.4 (10th Cir. 2017)); see also United States v. Williams, 2021 WL 4772947, at *1 (D. Kan. 2021).
Yates, 2019 WL 1779773, at *2.
Id. (noting that a prisoner must file the motion “against the person who has custody” over the prisoner) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, it appears that Defendant is challenging the BOP's computation of her good-time credit. Thus, she must exhaust her administrative remedies and then file a § 2241 motion where she is incarcerated. She is currently imprisoned in the Federal Correction Institution in Tallahassee, Florida. Accordingly, the District of Kansas lacks jurisdiction over this motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Clarification Pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018 (Doc. 121) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.