Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Detloff v. Ortiz

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 27, 2017

SCOTT R. DETLOFF, Petitioner,
v.
DAVID ORTIZ, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge.

         1. 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.

         2. 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.

         3. The 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.

         4. The 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.

         5. The Marshals picked up Petitioner on May 21, 2012, one month before he was scheduled to start his state parole.

         6. 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.

         7. MDOC 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.

         8. The 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.

         9. Upon 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 27, 2019.

         10. 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.

         11. 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).

         12. 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 for resolution.

         13. Section 1404(a) of Title 28 permits a court to transfer venue for “the convenience of parties and witnesses . . . to any district or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.