Crawford v. Wynn

• Decision Date: 13 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. CV-12-0162-TUC-FRZ (BGM),CV-12-0162-TUC-FRZ (BGM)
• Parties: Andre Maurice Crawford, Petitioner, v. Louis Wynn, Jr., Warden, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

Andre Maurice Crawford, Petitioner, v. Louis Wynn, Jr., Warden, Respondent.

No. CV-12-0162-TUC-FRZ (BGM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

August 13, 2014

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Andre Maurice Crawford's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody ("Petition") (Doc. 1). Respondent Wynn filed his Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Response") (Doc. 13), and Petitioner filed his reply (Doc. 14). Pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny the Petition (Doc. 1).

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution Tucson ("FCI Tucson") in Tucson, Arizona. See Petition (Doc. 1). On December 20, 1992, Petitioner committed the federal offenses of Armed Carjacking and Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Violent Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119 and 924(c).Response (Doc. 13), Clarke Decl. (Exh. "1") ¶ 3 & United States District Court ("USDC") E.D. Pa. Case No. 93-CR-00108 Judgment in a Criminal Case (Attach. "1"). On December 21, 1992, Petitioner allegedly committed the offense of Carrying [a] Firearm Without a License, in violation of Pennsylvania law. Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 4 & Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Case No. CP-46-CR-0001115-1993 (Attach. "3") at 2. On December 29, 1992, a Complaint against Petitioner was filed in the federal case, USDC E.D. Pa. Case No. 93-CR-00108. Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 5 & USDC E.D. Pa. Case No. 93-CR-00108 Docket (Attach. "4") at 1.¹

On January 19, 1993, Petitioner allegedly committed inter alia the offense of Aggravated Assault in violation of Pennsylvania state law. Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 7, Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Docket, Case No. CP-46-CR-0000829-1993 (Attach. "5") at 3, 23. On January 20, 1993, Petitioner allegedly committed inter alia the offense of Recklessly Endangering Another Person, Carrying a Firearm Without a License, and Aggravated Assault in violation of Pennsylvania state law. Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 8, Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Docket, Case No. CP-46-CR-0000622-1993 (Attach. "6") at 3, 24. On January 28, 1993, Petitioner was arrested by the Cheltenham Township Police Department in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Case No. CP-46-0000829-1993. Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 9 & Attach. "5" at 1.

On March 4, 1993, the USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered that the Warden of the Montgomery County Correctional Facility at Eagleville, Pennsylvania and the United States Marshal Service ("USMS") produce Petitioner for arraignment in Case No. 93-CR-00108.² Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 11 & Attach. "4" at 2. On July 27, 1993, the USDC sentenced Petitioner to 106 months of incarceration and three (3) years supervised release in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. CR-93-00108. Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 13, Attach. "4" at 6 (Judgment 7/28/1993). On September 9, 1994, the state charge of Carrying [a] Firearm Without a License, Court of Common Pleas Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Case No. CP-46-CR-0001115-1993, was dismissed. Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 14, Attach. "3" at 2. On November 7, 1998, Petitioner was sentenced to five (5) to twenty (20) years incarceration for Aggravated Assault in the Court of Common Pleas Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Case No. CP-46-CR-0000829-1993. Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 16, Attach. "5" at 5. On this same date, Petitioner was also sentenced regarding the state charges of Recklessly Endangering Another Person and Carrying [a] Firearm Without a License in Court of Common Pleas Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Case No. CP-46-CR-0000622-1993.³ Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 15, Attach. "6" at 4-5.

On August 31, 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Board of Probation and Parole granted Petitioner parole in case CP-46-CR-0829-1993. Response (Doc. 13), Notice of Board Decision (Attach. "8"). That decision stated in relevant part:

Following an interview with you and a review of your file, and having considered all matters required pursuant to the Parole Act of 1941, as amended, 61 P.S. § 331.1 et seq., the Board of Probation and Parole, in the exercise of its discretion, has determined at this time that: your best interests justify you being paroled/reparoled; and, the interests of the Commonwealth will not be injured. Therefore, you are granted parole/reparole at this time. The reasons for the Board's decision include the following:

Your acceptance of responsibility for the offense(s) committed.

The recommendation made by the Department of Corrections.

The existence of detainers filed against you.

Your participation in and completion of prescribed institutional programs.

Your reported institutional behavior since last review.

Your interview with the hearing examiner and/or board member.

Paroled to federal detainer sentence.

You shall abide by the rules and regulations of the institution (this applies to detainer cases only.)

Response (Doc. 13), Attach. "8" at 1-2 (emphasis added). On February 25, 2005, prior to Petitioner being ordered released on Parole, the Parole Board rescinded its August 31, 2004 parole action "due to receipt of misconduct[.]" Id. at 4; see also Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 18.

On December 19, 2007, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Board of Probation and Parole granted Petitioner parole in case number CP-46-CR-0000829-1993. Response (Doc. 13), Exh. "1" ¶ 19, Attach. "8" at 5-7. On February 7, 2008, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections was notified that March 3, 2008 had been established as Petitioner's parole release date. Id., Exh. "1" ¶ 20, Attach. "8" at 8. On March 3, 2008,the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ordered the Petitioner to be released, with an actual release date of March 12, 2008. Id., Exh. "1" ¶ 21, Attach. "8" at 12-13. On March 13, 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections paroled Petitioner, and he was taken into federal custody. Id., Exh. "1" ¶¶ 22-23, Attach. "8" at 13, Sentence Monitoring Computation Data 4/30/2012 (Attach. "9") at 1. Petitioner credit for his federal sentence began on March 13, 2008. Response (Doc. 13), Attach. "9" at 2.

On March 5, 2012, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1). Petitioner seeks credit toward his federal sentence beginning on August 31, 2004, the date of the Pennsylvania Parole Board's notice regarding its initial decision to parole Petitioner. See Petition (Doc. 1) at 4.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Jurisdiction

"Federal courts are always 'under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction,' . . . and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9^th Cir. 2000) (quoting FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by City of Littleton, Colo. v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 541 U.S. 774 (2004)). "Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court." Id. at 864. Therefore, a proper characterization of the petition is necessary to a determination of jurisdiction. Id.

Here, Petitioner does not claim that the sentencing court imposed an illegal sentence, rather he seeks relief with respect to the time credited to his federal sentence. As such, Petitioner is challenging the manner, location or condition of the execution of his sentence. See e.g., Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d 349 (1^st Cir. 1999) (section 2241 petition is appropriate vehicle to challenge the correctness of a jail-time credit determination, once administrative remedies have been exhausted); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858 (9th Cir. 2003) ("a prisoner may seek a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for 'expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement is likely to accelerate the prisoner's eligibility of parole.'") (quoting Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989)); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991) (a prisoner's challenge to the "manner in which his sentence was executed . . . [is] maintainable only in a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241."); Weinstein v. U.S. Parole Comm'n., 902 F.2d 1451, 1452 (9th Cir. 1990) ("The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review a claim by a federal prisoner challenging a decision of the United States Parole Commission."). Such a challenge must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court. Petitioner is incarcerated at USP - Tucson in Arizona. Accordingly, this Court hasjurisdiction over this matter. Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353 (9^th Cir. 1990).

B. Exhaustion

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

[28 U.S.C. § 2241] does not specifically require petitioners to exhaust direct appeals before filing petitions for habeas corpus. [Footnote omitted.] However, we require, as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.

Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9^th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds, Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30, 126 S.Ct. 2422, 165 L.Ed.2d 323 (2006). "The requirement that federal prisoners exhaust administrative remedies before filing a habeas corpus petition was...