United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pending before the court is Pro Se Petitioner
Ware's (“Petitioner” or “Ware”),
Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(“Petition”). (ECF No. 1.) Ware is currently a
federal prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution, Elkton, located in Lisbon, Ohio. (Id.
at 1.) He is serving a term of ninety-six months of federal
imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release,
for his conviction by guilty plea in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky for
conspiracy to distribute pills containing oxycodone, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 481(a)(1)b and 846.
(Id.) For the following reasons, the court grants
Ware's Petition as to his request for time served, and
denies the Petition as to Ware's request for immediate
November 14, 2013, Ware was arrested by federal authorities
based on his instant federal offense. (Id. at 2.) He
was released on bond with pretrial services supervision on
November 15, 2013. (Id.) On April 25, 2014, while on
bond for the federal offense, Ware was arrested by local
police in Franklin County, Kentucky for Trafficking a
Controlled Substance, First-Degree Cocaine, and Possession of
Drug Paraphernalia. (Id.) While detained in the
Franklin County jail, Ware was transferred to federal custody
pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum on July
14, 2014. (Id.) On January 20, 2015, Ware was
sentenced in federal court to ninety-six months of
imprisonment. (Id.) He was returned to state custody
on February 6, 2015, for disposition of his state charges.
February 10, 2015, Ware was sentenced in the Franklin County
Circuit Court to twelve months of imprisonment for his state
charges, to run concurrently with his undischarged federal
sentence. (Id.) He remained in state custody after
this sentencing and completed his twelve-month state
sentence. (Id. at 2-3.) The state sentence was
satisfied on April 23, 2015. (Id. at 3.) Ware was
then released to federal authorities on April 29, 2015.
(Id.) The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
computed Ware's sentence to commence on April 29, 2015,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585, upon determining the
Judgment and Commitment in the federal case did not
explicitly state whether the federal judge intended for the
federal sentence to run concurrently with the
yet-to-be-determined state sentence. (Id.)
Therefore, the federal sentence was imposed to run
consecutive to the completed state sentence. (Id.)
December 28, 2015, Ware filed a motion to vacate, set aside
or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
(Id. at 1.) The Eastern District of Kentucky denied
the motion and declined to issue a Certificate of
Appealability. (Id.) It is undisputed that Ware has
pursued and exhausted his administrative appeals within the
BOP. (Id., Ex. A.) On March 15, 2017, the Central
Authority Office of the BOP denied his final appeal,
indicating that the BOP computed Ware's sentence
correctly and within the intent of the court. (Id.)
On August 10, 2017, Ware filed the present Petition in this
court. The Government filed its Opposition to the Petition on
October 6, 2017. (ECF No. 11.) Ware filed his Traverse in
reply to the Opposition on January 26, 2018. (ECF No.
Federal Habeas Corpus: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
of habeas corpus “may be granted by the Supreme Court,
any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(a). Section 2241 “is an affirmative grant
of power to federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus to
prisoners being held ‘in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.'”
Rice v. White, 660 F.3d 242, 249 (6th Cir. 2011)
(quoting § 2241). When a prisoner seeks to challenge the
execution or manner in which a sentence is served, he must
file his claim in the court having jurisdiction over his
custodian under § 2241. Otero v. Elkton, No.
4:05 CV 0754, 2005 WL 1223429, at *2-3 (N.D. Ohio May 23,
2005) (citations omitted). Proper jurisdiction for the filing
of a § 2241 petition is in the district in which the
prisoner is confined. Acevedo v. Hanson, No.
4:15CV2045, 2017 WL 4404453, at *2 (N.D. Ohio July 14, 2017)
(citations omitted). Since Ware is confined in the Northern
District of Ohio, this court has proper jurisdiction over
Petitioner's custodian, Warden Merlak.
Ware is appearing pro se, pleadings are held to a
less stringent standard than those prepared by counsel.
Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir. 2001).
However, this court may dismiss the Petition at any time, or
make any such disposition as law and justice require, if it
determines the Petition fails to establish adequate grounds
for relief. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775
(1987); see also Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141
(6th Cir. 1970) (holding district courts have a duty to
“screen out” petitions lacking merit on their
face under 28 U.S.C. § 2243).
BOP decision, any further court review of the Bureau's
determination will be limited to an abuse of discretion.
Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478 (3d Cir. 1990).
The test is not whether a reviewing court would have found
differently. The writ may issue only when an error is
“fundamental and carries a serious potential for a
miscarriage of justice.” Ruff v. Butler, No.
16-5565, 2017 WL 5135545, at *2 (6th Cir. June 16, 2017)
(citing Eccleston v. United States, 390 Fed.
App'x 62, 65 (3d Cir. 2010); Barden v. Keohane,
921 F.2d 476, 479 (3d Cir. 1990)).
Federal Sentence Credit: 18 ...