United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY § 2241
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.
and Procedural History
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.
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.
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.
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.;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 ...