United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
JUAN COLLAZO REG. # 22102-075
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se petitioner
Johnny Collazo. Collazo is an inmate in the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute at
Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”).
matter has been referred to the undersigned for review,
report, and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and the standing orders of this court. For the
reasons stated below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that
the matter be DENIED and DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
The factual basis for Collazo's claims is provided in our
preceding amend order. Doc. 4. He claims that the BOP erred
in denying him sentencing credit under 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b) for time spent out on bond. Doc. 1, pp. 6-7. In our
amend order, we stated that we could not determine whether
Collazo's petition should survive initial review without
reviewing the BOP's responses to his requests for
administrative remedy. Doc. 4, p. 3. We also noted that,
under Supreme Court precedent, prisoners are not entitled to
sentencing credit under § 3585(b) for time spent
released on bail before their sentence begins, even if
subject to community confinement. Doc. 4, pp. 3-4; see
Reno v. Koray, 115 S.Ct. 2021 (1995).
has now responded to our amend order by filing an amended
petition and providing a copy of the response to his BP-11.
Doc. 5; doc. 5, att. 1. The BP-11 response shows that his
request for sentencing credit was denied under Reno v.
Koray, supra, and Collazo makes no additional claims in
his amended petition.
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