United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
John Lima, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, when he was confined at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut
(“FCI Danbury”). Petitioner claims Warden Quay
failed to credit his federal sentence with 194 days of time
spent in custody, after his arrest on criminal charges in
Massachusetts. For the reasons that follow, the petition is
April 26, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Mr. Lima pleaded guilty to
count two of a four count superseding indictment charging him
with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. See Doc.
No. 1, Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus at 10-11. On November 16,
2007, a judge sentenced Mr. Lima to sixty months of
imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release.
See Id. at 11; Doc. No. 11-3, Resp. to Pet., Attach.
3. Mr. Lima began his term of supervised release on October
1, 2011. See Doc. No. 11 at 14-16, Decl. Dawn
Giddings ¶ 4; Resp. to Pet., Attach. 3.
10, 2013, state authorities in Leominster, Massachusetts,
arrested Mr. Lima on the following criminal charges:
receiving stolen property, uttering false checks, and use of
a false name and social security number. See Pet.
Writ Habeas Corpus at 11. After his arrest, Mr. Lima could
not post bail. See Id. On January 10, 2014, Mr. Lima
pleaded guilty to all charges and a judge imposed a sentence
of seven months of imprisonment. See Doc. No. 11-4,
Resp. to Pet., Attach. 4.
January 10, 2014, the State of Massachusetts released Mr.
Lima to the custody of the United States Marshal on charges
that he violated the terms of his supervised release from his
federal criminal sentence. See Doc. No. 11-2, Resp.
to Pet., Attach. 2. On March 18, 2014, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mr. Lima
pleaded guilty to a violation of the first condition of his
term of supervised release and the judge sentenced him to
thirty months of imprisonment. See Doc. No. 11-5,
Resp. to Pet. Attach. 5; Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus at 11.
writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 is available to a
federal prisoner who does not challenge the legality of his
sentence, but challenges instead its execution subsequent to
conviction.” Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of
Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001). A challenge
to the execution of a federal inmate’s sentence may
include “such matters as the administration of parole,
computation of a prisoner’s sentence by prison
officials, prison disciplinary actions, prison transfers,
type of detention and prison conditions.” Jiminian
v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing
Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474-75 (2d
Cir. 1997) (describing situations where a federal prisoner
would properly file a section 2241 petition)). Thus, an
action challenging the Bureau of Prison’s calculation
of a sentence is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. See Chambers, 106 F.3d at 474-75.
Lima asserts one ground for relief: that the Bureau of
Prisons wrongfully denied him credit towards his federal
sentence for time spent in state custody before he began to
serve his federal sentence. The Bureau of Prisons has
credited Mr. Lima’s federal term of imprisonment with
time served in state custody from June 20 to June 21, 2012
and from January 8, 2014 through March 17, 2014. See
Decl. Dawn Giddings ¶ 13. Mr. Lima seeks credit towards
his federal sentence for the time period from the date of his
arrest to the date of his release from state custody, June
10, 2013 through January 10, 2014.
federal sentence commences when the defendant is received
into custody of the Attorney General at the facility at which
the sentence will be served. See 18 U.S.C. §
3585(a). Credit for time served before the beginning of a
federal sentence is computed by the Attorney General. See
United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-334 (1992).
The Second Circuit has held that “[t]he Bureau of
Prisons, and not the courts, determine when a
defendant’s sentence starts and whether the defendant
should receive credit for any prior time spent in
custody.” United States v. Montez-Gaviria, 163
F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 1998).
sentence computations are governed by 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b), which provides:
(b) Credit for prior custody. A defendant shall be given
credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any
time he has spent in official detention prior ...