Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Campbell v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

February 1, 2018




         On or about August 28, 2017, Petitioner Brian Corey Campbell, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. After direction from this Court, ECF No. 3, Petitioner filed an amended § 2241 petition on September 21, 2017, ECF No. 5. On December 5, 2017, Respondent filed an answer, with exhibits. ECF No. 9. Petitioner has filed a “Motion in Opposition to the Warden's Response, ” which this Court considers as a reply. ECF No. 11.

         The matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 72.2(B). After careful consideration, the undersigned concludes Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief and, accordingly, this § 2241 petition should be denied.

         Background and Procedural History

         Petitioner Brian Corey Campbell, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Marianna, Florida, filed this § 2241 petition challenging the computation of his federal sentence and requesting prior jail credit. On January 12, 2015, Florida Sheriff's Deputies in Walton County arrested Campbell for distribution of controlled substances. ECF No. 9-1 at 1-5 (Ex. 1, Decl. of J.R. Johnson). On January 15, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued a warrant for Campbell for violating supervised release in case number 3:07cr115-RV. Id. at 7-9.

         According to documents provided by Respondent, on June 4, 2015, the state court, Florida's First Judicial Circuit, sentenced Campbell to two years in prison for possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a schedule II controlled substance and possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a place of worship or business. Id. at 2-3; see id. at 14-18. The state court ordered Campbell to serve his sentence concurrently and conterminously with any federal sentence. Id. at 2-3.

         On September 21, 2016, Florida state authorities released Campbell Case No. 3:17cv662-LC/CAS to the U.S. Marshals Service based on the January 15, 2015, warrant. Id. at 3; see id. at 20, 22-24. On November 1, 2016, the federal court, the Northern District of Florida, sentenced Campbell to 37 months in prison for the violation of his supervised release. Id. at 3, 26-31. The federal court judgment did not reference the state sentence. Id.

         On the day of his federal sentencing, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) prepared a sentence computation. Id. at 3, 33-34. The BOP allowed prior custody credit from the day after Campbell was released from Florida state custody, September 22, 2016, until the day before the federal sentence started, October 31, 2016. Id. Campbell's expected release date is May 29, 2019. Id.; see

         Campbell contacted the BOP and requested a nunc pro tunc designation of his state and federal prison sentences. ECF No. 9-1 at 4. The BOP denied his request and explained that “[o]ne requirement in determining eligibility for a nunc pro tunc designation pursuant to Barden [v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990)], is that the state sentence be imposed after the federal sentence” but, in Campbell's case, “the state sentence was imposed before [his] federal sentence was imposed.” ECF No. 9-1 at 59.

         As indicated above, Campbell filed this § 2241 petition on or about August 28, 2017. ECF No. 1. He filed an amended § 2241 petition after direction from this Court. ECF No. 5. In his amended petition, he requests “prior jail credit pursuant to [n]unc pro tunc, [W]illis doctrine[, ] Kayfez, and due to the sentence running coterminous.” Id. at 3. He indicates he presented his request to the BOP. Id.

         Respondent filed an answer, with attachments. ECF No. 9. Respondent asserts the BOP considered Campbell's nunc pro tunc designation request and properly denied it because the state sentence was imposed before the federal sentence. Id. at 3-4. Respondent further asserts Campbell is not entitled to Willis or Kayfez credits and is not entitled to have his sentences run “coterminous.” Id. at 4-6. Respondent argues this Court should dismiss or deny Campbell's petition as his sentence was properly calculated. Id. at 6-7.

         Campbell has filed a “Motion in Opposition to the Warden's Response to 28 U.S.C. 2241, ” ECF No. 11, considered by this Court as a reply to Respondent's answer. Campbell cites United States v. Langham, 670 F. App'x 991 (10th Cir. 2016), and argues this Court should order the BOP to apply a nunc pro tunc designation because he had a “federal hold . . . lodged against him before being sentence[d] in the State of Florida.” ECF No. 11 at 2.


         The Judiciary Act of 1789 granted federal courts the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus. See United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (1952). The habeas remedy is now codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2241, subsection (c)(3) of which provides that the writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless the prisoner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” As noted in Hayman, prisoners must bring habeas corpus applications in the district of confinement. 342 U.S. at 213. Because courts with federal prisons in their jurisdictional boundaries became inundated with habeas petitions, and because the materials, witnesses, and other evidence which had a significant bearing on the determination of the legality of a sentence were generally located in the district where sentence was imposed rather than where the prisoner was confined, in 1948 Congress enacted § 2255 of Title 28. See id. at 212-14, 218; see also Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1239 (11th Cir. 1999).

         The language of § 2255 suggests, and the Eleventh Circuit has expressly concluded, that this statute channels challenges to the legality of the imposition of a sentence, while leaving § 2241 available to challenge the continuation or execution of an initially valid confinement. See Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 629 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining § 2255 is primary method of collateral attack on federally imposed sentence). Thus, § 2241 provides an avenue for challenges to matters such as the administration of sentences or parole, prison disciplinary actions, prison transfers, and certain types of detention. See Antonelli, 542 F.3d at 1352 (petition challenging decision of federal Parole Commission is properly brought pursuant to § 2241); Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 810 (11th Cir. 2004) (petition challenging pre-trial detention is properly brought pursuant to § 2241); Bishop v. Reno, 210 ...

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.