United States District Court, D. New Jersey
SCOTT R. DETLOFF, Petitioner,
DAVID ORTIZ, Respondent.
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge.
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he
challenges the calculation of his federal sentence. (Docket
Entry 1). Petitioner was in custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons in this District at FCI Fort Dix when he filed this
Petition, and he has been transferred to FCI Milan, Michigan.
Petitioner was arrested by the State of Michigan on October
11, 2009. Declaration of J.R. Johnson (“Johnson
Dec.”) ¶ 4. He was sentenced on December 22, 2009,
and resentenced on the same charges on August 16, 2011 to a
term of 2 years, 6 months to 15 years, with 602 days of
credit. Johnson Dec. ¶¶ 5-6.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (“Eastern District”) issued a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum for Petitioner to appear on
unrelated federal charges on April 25, 2012.
Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”)
determined Petitioner would be eligible for parole as of June
21, 2012. Johnson Dec. Attachment 10. As the U.S. Marshals
Service (“Marshals”) had filed a detainer against
Petitioner on April 30, 2012, see Johnson Dec.
Attachment 5 at 1, MDOC sent a letter to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan on
May 7, 2012 indicating the “current decision of the
parole board” was that Petitioner “[h]as a parole
for 6/21/12.” Johnson Dec. Attachment 10.
Marshals picked up Petitioner on May 21, 2012, one month
before he was scheduled to start his state parole.
Petitioner appeared in federal court on May 23, 2012 and
signed an Interstate Agreement on Detainers waiver stating he
wanted to waive his “right to remain in federal
custody” and requested to “be promptly returned
to state custody, prior to the completion of the trial on
[his] federal charges.” Petitioner's Exhibit 9. The
Marshals did not return Petitioner to state custody until
August 27, 2014.
suspended Petitioner's parole on May 22, 2013 because
“[s]ubject has incurred pending charges from U.S.
Marshal Service for stealing mail/check fraud. . . .”
Petitioner's Exhibit 12.
Eastern District sentenced Petitioner on July 16, 2014 to a
60-month term of imprisonment to be served concurrently with
his undischarged state sentence. Johnson Dec. Attachment 7.
Petitioner was also sentenced to 24-months, to be served
consecutively to his other federal sentence, for violating
probation. Johnson Dec. Attachment 8. He was returned to the
state on August 27, 2014 and began his state parole on
November 26, 2014. Johnson Dec. ¶¶ 14-15; Johnson
Dec. Attachment 14.
Petitioner's return to the BOP, BOP calculated
Petitioner's federal sentence as beginning on the date of
sentencing, July 16, 2014, in order to run his federal
sentence concurrently with his state sentence as ordered by
the Eastern District. Johnson Dec. Attachment 1 at 5.
Petitioner received jail credit for the period of time
between October 11 and December 21, 2009. Id. at 4.
The BOP calculated Petitioner's release date to be July
After exhausting his administrative remedies, Petitioner
filed this habeas petition arguing he is entitled to credit
on his federal sentence for time spent in custody between
June 21, 2012 and July 16, 2014. He argues the Marshals
mistakenly assumed he had been paroled by the State of
Michigan on June 21, 2012 and thus did not return him to the
MDOC to officially begin his term of parole. As a result, the
two years he spent in “primary state custody” was
“needlessly” credited towards his state sentence
instead of his federal sentence.
Petitioner was incarcerated in FCI Fort Dix, New Jersey at
the time he filed this § 2241 petition. Therefore, this
Court had jurisdiction over the petition as the district in
which Petitioner was confined at the time of filing, and it
continues to retain jurisdiction even though Petitioner has
subsequently been transferred to FCI Milan, located in the
Eastern District of Michigan. See Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004) (citing Ex parte
Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944)); see also Gorrell v.
Yost, 509 F.App'x 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013).
Although the Court continues to retain jurisdiction over the
petition, the parties shall be ordered to show cause why this
petition should not be transferred to the Eastern District
Section 1404(a) of Title 28 permits a court to transfer venue
for “the convenience of parties and witnesses . . . to
any district or ...