United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
JEFFREY ALKER MEYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Erhauyi Omoregie is a federal prison inmate at FCI Danbury.
He has filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the calculation of his
sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. He contends that the
Bureau of Prisons has wrongfully refused to credit time he
spent in detention prior to formally commencing service of
his federal sentence. For the reasons explained below, I will
grant in part and deny in part the petition for a writ of
was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the
second degree in violation of New York law on September 10,
2004. Doc. #8-2 at 5. On March 29, 2006, petitioner was
sentenced on this charge to seven years of imprisonment and
five years of post-release supervision. Ibid. The
sentence commenced on April 7, 2006, when petitioner was
received at the New York Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision (NYDOCCS). Doc. #8-3 at 8. Petitioner
was granted credit towards his sentence for 574 days of
parole jail time for the period between petitioner's
arrest on September 10, 2004, and the commencement of his
sentence on April 7, 2006. Ibid. The original
maximum expiration date for the seven-year term of
imprisonment was September 7, 2011, and the original maximum
expiration date for parole release supervision was September
6, 2016. Ibid.
October 7, 2010, petitioner was conditionally released to
supervision after receiving a “good time
adjustment” of 11 months. Doc. #8-3 at 9. If he had not
had any violations, the maximum expiration date for his
parole release supervision would have been October 7, 2015.
was declared delinquent as of November 23, 2012, as a result
of obtaining a driver's license without his parole
officer's permission and having an absconder as a
passenger. Doc. #8-2 at 5; Doc. #8-3 at 8. On December 21,
2012, petitioner's parole was revoked, and he was
sentenced to either 12 months of imprisonment or an
alternative term of 90 days in a drug treatment
program. Doc. #1-2 at 1; Doc. #1-3 at 3; Doc. #8 at
1; Doc. #8-3 at 6. Petitioner returned to the custody of the
NYDOCCS as a conditional release violator on January 4,
2013.Doc. #8-3 at 8. His tentative release date
was November 23, 2013, which was 12 months after he had been
taken into custody for the parole violation. Ibid.
His maximum expiration date was calculated to be September 9,
2016, which is the same date as his original maximum
expiration date for his parole release supervision.
entered the Willard drug treatment program on January 14 or
15, 2013. But he was soon removed from the program
on January 24, 2013, and was sent to Downstate Correctional
Facility in order to be transferred to federal custody on a
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to face
conspiracy drug charges in federal court in New York. Doc.
#8-3 at 2. For more than two-and-a-half years-from January
28, 2013, until October 29, 2015-plaintiff was housed at the
Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), a federal
administrative prison in New York City, pursuant to this
writ. Doc. #8-4 at 2.
meantime, on June 9, 2015, petitioner pled guilty to federal
criminal drug charges. Doc. #8-5 at 2. He was sentenced for
these charges on October 13, 2015, to a prison term of 87
months. Doc. #8-1 at 3.
October 29, 2015, petitioner was returned to state prison,
where he remained for about two more months until December
28, 2015, when he was released by the State on parole but
then immediately transferred back to federal custody. Doc.
#8-3 at 2, 12; #8-4 at 2. The Bureau of Prisons calculated
petitioner's federal prison sentence to begin on December
28, 2015, and it did not give him any credit for the time he
had previously spent in state custody or at MCC on the writ
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Doc. #8-1 at 4.
requested that the Bureau of Prisons credit his time spent at
MCC against his federal sentence of 87 months. This request
was denied, and petitioner's appeals were also denied.
Petitioner has therefore properly exhausted his
administrative remedies before filing this pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. By means of this petition filed against the
Warden of FCI Danbury, petitioner seeks credit for the time
period from mid-April of 2013-when he believes he would have
successfully completed the Willard drug program and been
released on parole-through December 28, 2015.
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a prisoner may challenge the manner
in which the Bureau of Prisons executes a sentence, including
to challenge how the BOP has computed the start date and
length of a sentence. See Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d
144, 146 (2d Cir. 2001). A federal criminal defendant's
sentence formally “commences” when he is received
into custody at the official detention facility at which his
sentence is to be served. See 18 U.S.C. §
3585(a). A defendant, however, may sometimes receive credit
for time that he has previously served in detention prior to
the formal commencement of his federal criminal sentence. If
any such earlier detention “has not been credited
against another sentence, ” a defendant shall receive
credit for time that he has previously spent in official
detention “as a result of the offense for which the
[current federal] sentence was imposed, ” or “as
a result of any other charge for which the defendant was
arrested after the commission of the offense for which the
sentence was imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). In
short, a “defendant has no right to credit on his
federal sentence for time that has been credited against [a]
prior state sentence.” United States v.
Labeille-Soto, 163 F.3d 93, 99 (2d Cir. 1998).
case involves a prisoner's claim that he should have
received credit toward his federal sentence for prior time
that he spent in federal custody pursuant to a federal writ
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. This type of writ
“orders the production of a prisoner in court for the
purpose of standing trial.” Lugo v. Hudson,
785 F.3d 852, 854 (2d Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
“If a prisoner is serving a state sentence when he is
produced for a federal prosecution, the writ temporarily
transfers him to federal custody for prosecution but the
state retains primary custody for the purpose of calculating
his state sentence.” Id. at 854-55.
because a prisoner has previously spent time in federal
custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum does not mean that this time will be
credited to his federal sentence. To the contrary,
“[i]t is well-established in the Second Circuit that if
an inmate is in state custody when he or she is transferred
to temporary federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum, the inmate remains the
subject of the state's jurisdiction during the time spent
in temporary federal custody and, if the inmate receives
credit for that time toward the state sentence, the inmate
may not also receive credit for that time toward a later
federal sentence.” Ramos v. United States,
2017 WL 384024, at *2 (D. Conn. 2017). Moreover, “[t]he
Second Circuit has held that the BOP cannot credit a prisoner
for time served following his conditional release date on a
state sentence for violation of parole even though the
prisoner might have been released ...