The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert B. Kugler United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter having come before this Court upon Petitioner's submission of a Section 2241 habeas petition ("Petition"), see Docket Entry No. 1, and it appearing that:
1. Petitioner commenced this matter without submitting his in forma pauperis application and without paying his filing fee. See Docket Entry No. 1. The Court, therefore, directed administrative termination of this matter, allowing Petitioner an opportunity to cure the deficiency of his submission. See Docket Entry No. 2. Petitioner, thereafter, cured the deficiency of his filing by prepaying his filing fee.
2. While the Petition is of less than exemplar clarity, it appears
that Petitioner is seeking a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 writ by asserting that
his federal sentencing court, that is the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, directed retroactive
Petitioner's federal sentence by uttering certain, not elaborated in
the Petition, oral statements, which were made during Petitioner's
federal sentencing proceedings. See, generally, Docket Entry No. 1. In
other words, it appears that Petitioner is seeking enforcement of the
adjustment granted by his federal sentencing court (which measure was
allowed to the district courts in this Circuit since Ruggiano v.
Reish, 307 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2002), and was validated by the Supreme
Court in Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012)).*fn1
However, Petitioner articulated his claims by mixing the
Ruggiano challenges with the
terminology commonly used with credits issued not by federal courts
but by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), i.e., the terminology commonly
used by the litigants seeking administrative recalculation of their
prison sentences under the holdings of Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476
(3d Cir. 1991), or Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.
1971), or Kayfez v. Gasele, 993 F. 2d 1288 (7th Cir. 1993).
3. Petitioner's efforts as to exhausting his administrative remedies were, seemingly, even more problematic, since the sole exhibit provided by Petitioner indicates that he raised his mix of Ruggiano - Barden - Willis - Kayfez challenges only to his warden, without appealing the warden's denial of his application to either the Regional or the Central Office of the BOP. See, generally, Docket Entry No. 1.
4. While this matter is greatly mired by ambiguities plaguing Petitioner's submission, three important aspects appear sufficiently certain:
a. The warden, in denying Petitioner's application, did not consider or even obtain the transcripts of Petitioner's federal sentencing proceedings and, hence, did not perform a proper Ruggiano - Rios analysis, see Docket Entry No. 1, at 11-12 (although this Court cannot rule out the possibility that the content of Petitioner's administrative application to the warden,, which is omitted from the submission at bar, was so confusing in terms of mixing Ruggiano - Barden - Willis
- Kayfez challenges that this very mix prevented the warden from recognizing and properly addressing the Ruggiano issue, that is, the core issue Petitioner is seemingly striving to assert);
b. Petitioner's federal sentencing court, responding to Petitioner's request for a Ruggiano-like clarification, actually entered an order, dated June 16, 2011, verifying what appears to be Petitioner's federal sentencing court's unambiguous intent to direct downward adjustment of Petitioner's federal sentence by means of ordering retroactive concurrence, see id. at 13; accord USA v. Rodriguez, Crim. Action No. 95-95 (LDD) (E.D. Pa.), Docket Entry No. 61;*fn2 and
c. Petitioner's current, seemingly unadjusted, projected date of release from federal confinement is August 7, 2013, which - in turns - means that, in the event Petitioner's federal sentencing court's Ruggiano adjustment of ten months was, in fact, directed and would be enforced by the BOP -- Petitioner might be eligible for release as soon as on November 7, 2012.*fn3
5. In light of the potential exigency of the circumstances at bar, this Court finds it warranted to:
a. excuse what appears to be Petitioner's failure to duly exhaust his administrative remedies, but see this Memorandum Opinion and Order, n. 3;
b. order Respondent's answer to be filed within ten days from the date of issuance of this Memorandum Opinion and Order;*fn4 and
c. direct the Clerk of the Court to serve a complimentary copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order on Petitioner's federal sentencing judge, Honorable Legrome D. Davis ("Judge Davis"), to enable Judge Davis' contact with this Court and/or with the BOP (or the agency's counsel), ...