Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Collazo v. Johnson

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

February 22, 2018

JUAN COLLAZO REG. # 22102-075
v.
CALVIN JOHNSON

         SECTION P

          UNASSIGNED, DISTRICT JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          KATHLEEN KAY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se petitioner Juan Collazo. Collazo is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oakdale, Louisiana.

         I.

         Background

         Collazo pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. United States v. Collazo, No. 3:13-cr-209(1), doc. 187 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 20, 2015). On July 20, 2015, he was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment. Id. He now brings this petition to challenge the BOP's calculation of his sentence, alleging that the BOP erred by failing to credit him for 646 days in prior custody based on time he was out on bond. Doc. 1, pp. 6-7. He asserts that he exhausted his administrative remedies through the filing of a BP-11, which was denied on June 5, 2017. Id. at 2. He does not attach any decision on his administrative remedies or other evidence of exhaustion to his complaint.

         II.

         Law & Analysis

         A. Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions

         A district court may apply any or all of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to those filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes preliminary review of such petitions, and states that they must be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Id. at Rule 4. To avoid summary dismissal under Rule 4, the petition must contain factual allegations pointing to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Id. at Rule 4, advisory committee note (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). Accordingly, we review the pleadings and exhibits before us to determine whether any right to relief is indicated, or whether the petition must be dismissed.

         B. Application

         A § 2241 petition on behalf of a sentenced prisoner “attacks the manner in which a sentence is carried out or the prison authorities' determination of its duration.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). In order to prevail, a § 2241 petitioner must show that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

         Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), the authority to grant or deny credit for time served is specifically reserved to the United States Attorney General and delegated to the Bureau of Prisons. United States v. Wilson, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 1353-54 (1992); see also United States v. Jack, 566 Fed. App'x 331, 332 (5th Cir. 2014). The federal sentencing court thus has no authority to designate or calculate credit for time spent in jail prior to the commencement of a federal sentence. See, e.g., Wilson, 112 S.Ct. at 1353-54. A district court may review a challenge to the BOP's refusal to grant credit for time served or make a nunc ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.