United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
MORALES HOWARD UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Thurlyne Lamar Smith, a federal inmate confined at Coleman
Federal Correctional Institution, initiated this action on
April 2, 2018, by filing a pro se Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (Petition) (Civ. Doc. 1) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. In this Petition, Smith requests credit
for jail time that he earned between April 14, 2014, and
August 21, 2014. Civ. Doc. 1 at 8.
28, 2001, following a plea of guilty to conspiracy to
distribute cocaine base more than fifty grams, the Honorable
Virginia M. Hernandez Covington sentenced Smith to
incarceration for a term of 168 months, followed by a
five-year term of supervised release. See Crim. Doc.
38. On March 27, 2008, Judge Covington reduced Smith's
term of incarceration to a term of 140 months. See
Crim. Doc. 49. Smith completed his term of incarceration and
commenced his term of supervised release on April 16, 2010.
See Crim. Doc. 67. On May 24, 2011, the Court
reduced the term of supervised release by a period of one
year, after Smith successfully completed the Court's
reentry program. See id. Thereafter, on September
20, 2011, the Court extended the term of Smith's
supervised release by four months. See Crim. Doc.
68. Smith's supervised release was set to terminate on
August 15, 2014. Id.
February 26, 2013, the probation officer filed a petition
alleging that Smith violated the conditions of his supervised
release. See Crim. Doc. 69. Then on March 5, 2013,
the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office arrested Smith,
resulting in the State of Florida charging Smith, by
information, with the following offenses: sale of cocaine
within a 1000 feet of a church; possession of cocaine; and
possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis. See
State v. Smith, 16-2013-CF-2291 (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct.);
State v. Smith, 16-2013-CF-2292 (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct.).
The probation officer filed a superseding petition on March
20, 2013, in which he alleged additional violations of
Smith's supervised-release conditions. See Crim.
Doc. 71. With the benefit of counsel, on December 23, 2013,
Smith entered a negotiated plea of guilty to his state
charges and the state court sentenced him to a term of
incarceration of one year for the possession of less than
twenty grams of cannabis offense and a term of five years as
to each of the remaining offenses, with each such term to run
concurrently with the others. See Smith,
April 3, 2014, while Smith was in the custody of the State of
Florida, this Court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum ordering a United States Marshal to transport
Smith to federal custody for his initial appearance on the
superseding petition. See Crim. Doc. 75. The exact
date Smith was received into federal custody as a result of
the writ is unclear. The probation officer filed a second
superseding petition on April 14, 2014, in which he included
Smith's December 23, 2013, state convictions.
See Crim. Doc. 76. On July 23, 2014, after Smith
admitted violating the conditions of his supervised release,
this Court revoked Smith's supervised release and
sentenced him to imprisonment in the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) for a term of twenty months, with such term of
imprisonment to run consecutive to the terms of incarceration
imposed in the state circuit court, case numbers:
16-2013-CF-2291 and 16-2013-CF-2292. See Crim. Doc.
90. Following his sentencing, the federal writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum directed a United States Marshal to
return Smith to the custody of the Florida Department of
Corrections. See Crim. Doc. 75.
to the Florida Department of Corrections, Corrections
Offender website, Smith was released from state custody on
June 12, 2017. See Corrections Offender Network,
Florida Department of Corrections, available at
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/AppCommon/ (last visited Apr. 5,
2018). On July 6, 2017, the United States Marshal delivered
Smith to the custody of the BOP to begin his federal prison
sentence for the violation of his supervised release.
See Crim. Doc. 92. Smith is currently serving his
twenty-month federal prison sentence at Coleman Federal
Correctional Institution, with a release date of November 22,
2018. See Inmate Locator, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
available at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited
Apr. 5, 2018).
case, Smith makes a bare-bones request for time credit toward
his federal sentence for time spent in custody between April
14, 2014, and August 21, 2014. See Civ. Doc. 1 at 8.
Comparing these dates to the date the Court issued the writ
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum (April 3, 2014) and the date
of Smith's sentencing in federal court (July 23, 2014),
it appears that Smith is seeking credit toward his federal
sentence for the time he was in federal custody pursuant to
that writ while still serving his five-year state sentences.
In other words, Smith appears to seek credit toward his
federal sentence for the time he was held pursuant to the
writ prior to the commencement of the federal sentence he is
U.S.C. § 3585(b) provides that a defendant generally
must “be given credit toward the service of a term of
imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention
prior to the date the sentence commences.” The United
States Supreme Court holds
After a district court sentences a federal offender, the
Attorney General, through the BOP, has the responsibility for
administering the sentence . . . Because the offender has a
right to certain jail-time credit under § 3585(b), and
because the district court cannot determine the amount of the
credit at sentencing, the Attorney General has no choice but
to make the determination as an administrative matter when
imprisoning the defendant.
U.S. v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335, 112 S.Ct. 1351,
1355 (1992) (internal citation omitted). The Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals has recognized that federal regulations
provide prisoners with an avenue to challenge the computation
of their time credits and that prisoners can seek judicial
review of these computations after exhausting their
administrative remedies. See U.S. v. Flanagan, 868
F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir. 1988). Thus, “a federal
prisoner dissatisfied with the computation of his sentence
must pursue the administrative remedy through the federal
prison system before seeking judicial review of his
sentence.” Id. After the exhaustion of
administrative remedies, a claim for credit for time served
may be raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of
confinement. See U.S. v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1345
(11th Cir. 2000); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 447, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 2724 (2004). While exhaustion
is no longer a jurisdictional prerequisite to a § 2241
petition, “[t]he [administrative] exhaustion
requirement is still a requirement . . . .” Davis
v. Warden, 661 Fed.Appx. 561, 562 (11th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 475
(11th Cir. 2015)).
there is no indication that Smith attempted to exhaust his
administrative remedies before petitioning the Court.
See Civ. Doc. 1. Indeed, on page 2 of his Petition,
under the question, “[d]id you appeal the decision,
file a grievance, or seek an administrative remedy?, ”
Smith marked “No.” See Civ. Doc. 1 at 2.
As such, this Court finds this Petition is due to be
dismissed for Smith's failure to pursue relief from the
BOP before petitioning the Court. Further, as mentioned
supra, Smith is currently incarcerated at Coleman
Federal Correctional Institution, which is located within the
Ocala Division of the Middle District of Florida.
See Civ. Doc. 1 at 1. Considering the nature of the
relief Smith seeks, the Court finds the division of his
confinement rather than the division of his sentencing is the
more appropriate venue for this cause. Therefore, if Smith
wishes to file a § 2241 petition after exhausting his
administrative remedies, he should do so in the Ocala
Division of this District.
it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
case is dismissed without prejudice.
Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
dismissing this case without prejudice,