United States v. Sills

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. KARINDA SILLS, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, District of Colorado

Date published: Jan 10, 2023

CRIMINAL ACTION 17-cr-00156-CMA-GPG (D. Colo. Jan. 10, 2023)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION 17-cr-00156-CMA-GPG

01-10-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. KARINDA SILLS, Defendant.

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, Senior United States District Judge

ORDER

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, Senior United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the letter (Doc. # 58) submitted by Defendant Karina Sills and filed on January 3, 2023. Ms. Sills is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at a medical facility in Texas. In the letter (Doc. # 58) Ms. Sills contends her sentence has not been calculated properly and she asks the Court to appoint counsel to help her resolve the issue. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Defendant's sentence computation claim, the request for appointment of counsel must be denied.

Computation of a federal sentence is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3585 and the Attorney General, through the BOP, is responsible for making the sentence calculations contemplated by that statute. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-35 (1992). The Attorney General's decision may be reviewed in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), a writ of habeas corpus may be granted by “the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” “The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds [her] in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973).

The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is “the person who has custody over [the applicant].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.”). In most cases, there is “only one proper respondent to a given prisoner's habeas petition,” and the proper respondent generally is “the warden of facility where the prisoner is being held.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004).

Defendant alleges she is confined at a medical facility in Texas. Therefore, the warden at that facility is the proper Respondent for any claim by Defendant challenging the computation of her sentence and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider such a claim.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 58) is DENIED.