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

March 19, 2018

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

         SECTION P

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before 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”).

         This 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.

         I.

         Background

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).

         Collazo 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.

         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 ...


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.