United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is defendant Kentrell Washington's motion for
credit for time served in state custody. For the following
reasons, the Court denies defendant's motion.
31, 2009, the government filed a superseding indictment
charging Washington with one count of being a convicted felon
in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Defendant pleaded guilty to
this count on February 24, 2010,  and the Court sentenced
Washington to 77 months in custody, and a three year term of
supervised release. Washington's supervised release began
on August 11, 2015.
January 4, 2017, the government moved for an order to show
cause as to why Washington's supervised release should
not be revoked. In its motion, the government asserted
that Washington had violated the terms of his supervised
release by submitting multiple urine samples that tested
positive for controlled substances, and by failing to report
to the U.S. Probation Office as directed. In addition,
Washington was convicted of evading arrest and possession of
a controlled substance, both felonies, in the 177th District
Court in Harris County, Texas. On February 8, 2017, the Court
revoked Washington's supervised release and sentenced him
to 21 months for violating the conditions of his supervised
now moves for credit for the time he served in state prison
for his state convictions before his federal sentence began.
Court will construe defendant's motion as a petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because
defendant challenges the duration of his sentence. See
United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992)
(state custody credit challenge to petitioner's sentence
should be filed as a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (citing United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d
76, 77-78 (5th Cir. 1990))); United States v. Mares,
868 F.2d 151, 151 (5th Cir. 1989) (“A claim for time
served prior to the date of a federal sentence . . . . must
proceed via a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.”); see also Sanchez-Quintana v.
Davis, No. 01-2657, 2001 WL 1397316, *1 (E.D. La. Nov.
8, 2001) (“A complaint that challenges the fact or
duration of the petitioner's confinement must be
construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.”)
(citations omitted). In order to entertain jurisdiction over
a section 2241 habeas petition, the federal district court
must have jurisdiction over the petitioner or his custodian
when the petition is filed. Gabor, 905 F.2d at 78
(citing Blau v. United States, 566 F.2d 526, 527
(5th Cir. 1978)); McClure v. Hopper, 577 F.2d 938,
939-40 (5th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, a petitioner must file
his habeas petition in the federal district in which he is
physically present. Id. Here, it is undisputed that
defendant filed this petition from the federal penitentiary
in Beaumont, Texas,  which is in the Eastern District of
Texas. Therefore, the Court finds that it does not have
jurisdiction to afford defendant the relief he seeks.
Additionally, the petition is not properly before this Court
because Washington has not shown that he has exhausted his
administrative remedies as required under 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b). See United States v. Dowling, 962 F.2d 390,
393 (5th Cir. 1992) (“[A] necessary condition to
obtaining § 3585(b) credit is that the offender must
first exhaust his administrative remedies before the Bureau
of Prisons.”) (citing United States v. Wilson,
503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992)).
foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Washington's motion.
 R. Doc. 145.