United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
JUAN COLLAZO REG. # 22102-075
UNASSIGNED, DISTRICT JUDGE
KATHLEEN KAY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.
Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions
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.
§ 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).
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 ...