United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ZELDRICK H. NANCE, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
November 20, 2018, the undersigned sentenced the pro
se petitioner in this matter, Zeldrick II. Nance, to
48 months imprisonment after Nance, on October 30, 2017,
plead guilty to a one-count information charging him with
robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §
1951(a). (See Dec. 14, 2018 Am. Crim. J., available
in Nance's underlying criminal case, United States v.
Nance, No. 17-cr-467 at ¶ 26.) Nance is now serving
that sentence at FCI Cumberland, located in Cumberland,
Maryland. (See DE 1-2.)
or about August 6, 2019,  Nance filed the present habeas motion
seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
(See DE 1.) Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases, applicable to this case through Rule 1(b),
requires the Court to summarily dismiss Nance's §
2255 motion "[i]f it plainly appears from the [pleading]
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief[.]" For the reasons discussed herein, the Court
finds that summary dismissal is required.
Nance, by way of his § 2255 motion, claims only that the
Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") improperly calculated his
release date because it failed to credit 137 days of time
Nance spent in custody prior to sentencing. (See DE
1 at 10, 13.) 28 U.S.C. § 2255, however, is not the
proper statutory mechanism for this claim; Nance's
entitlement to habeas relief based for that claim - if true -
instead arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Indeed,
"Section 2241 is the only statute that confers habeas
jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who
is challenging not the validity but the execution of his
sentence." Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485
(3d Cir. 2001); accord United Stales v. Addonizio,
442 U.S. 178, 185-88 (1979) (holding that § 2255
authorizes challenges to the lawfulness of a federal
sentence, not to the lawfulness of the performance of
judgment and sentence).
simply, the lone habeas claim asserted by Nance vis-a-vis his
§ 2255 motion, i.e., that BOP failed to credit
137 days of time that Nance served before being sentenced by
this Court, must instead be brought under § 2241.
United States v. Mares, 868 F.2d 151, 151 (5th Cir.
1989) ("A claim for time served prior to the date of a
federal sentence ... must.. .proceed via a petition for
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.") (cited with
approval in Coady, 251 F.3d at 485-86); Eason v.
United States, No. 06-2953, 2006 WL 3524372, at *1 (E.D.
Pa. Dec. 6, 2006) ("[habeas] petition contesting the
calculation of credit for time served ... is properly
brought, not under § 2255, but rather under §
2241"); United States v. Chavez-Gavina, No.
00-63, 2002 WL 389274 *1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2002) ("the
appropriate jurisdictional basis to challenge sentence credit
and sentence computation is 28 U.S.C. §2241").
Critically, a "claimant [who seeks relief under §
2241] must file that petition in the district where he is
incarcerated; if the claimant files in another district, that
court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition."
Mares, 868 F.2d at 151-52; Rumsfeld v.
Padilia, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (a petition brought
pursuant to § 2241 must be brought in the prisoner's
district of confinement).
these reasons, the Court will summarily dismiss Nance's
§ 2255 motion; this dismissal is without prejudice to
Nance's right to challenge the BOP's calculation of
his sentence via the filing of a § 2241 petition in the
district of his confinement. See Fontanez v. United
States, No. 18-12382, 2018 WL 4693964, at *1 (D.N.J.
Sept. 28, 2018) (dismissing, without prejudice, § 2255
motion brought by federal inmate incarcerated in Pennsylvania
where the "sole grievance raised in [petitioner's
pleading was] that he [was] confined in excess of his maximum
term because [BOP] failed to calculate correctly his federal
sentence [based on its failure to] account for time spent in
state custody" and further noting that "he would
need to bring his claim for relief by petition . . . pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241" in the district of his
confinement). An appropriate Order follows.
 Nance executed that document on August
6, 2019. (See DE 1 at 13.) Nance addressed his
filing to the undersigned, directly; it was received in my
chambers on August 15, 2019. (See DE 1-2.) The Clerk
formally opened ...