United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
B. Russell, Senior Judge United States District Court.
matter comes before the Court upon motion by Defendant
Francisco Santana, (“Santana”), for a 21-month
jail-time credit. [DN 170.] The United States has responded,
[DN 170], and the time for Santana to reply has passed. This
matter is ripe for adjudication and for the reasons that
follow, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Santana's motion [DN 170] is DENIED.
January 22, 2014, Santana pleaded guilty to drug charges and
was subsequently ordered into confinement for a period of 188
months, which was later reduced to 151 months. [DN 145.] On
January 29, 2018, Santana filed his first motion for hard
time credit asking for a further reduction of 21 months with
respect to his sentence. [DN 165.] There, Santana alleged
that he was placed in an isolation cell at Grayson County
Detention Center from December 17, 2012 until September 21,
2014 (21 months), and that he was deprived of all privileges
while he was in isolation awaiting sentencing. [Id.
at 1.] Santana indicates that he was under 24-hour
surveillance in a cell with no windows, and that the lack of
opportunity to interact with any other people has affected
his ability to assimilate into general population
post-sentencing. [Id. at 2.] The government opposed
that motion. [DN 166.] The Court denied Santana's motion
stating he had not shown proof that he had exhausted
administrative review of his sentence. [DN 169 at 2.]
has filed a second motion for hard time credit. [DN 170.] He
now asks the Court again to grant him 21 months of credit for
Court must again deny Santana's motion. The Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals has addressed the issue with which this
Court now deals:
[a] defendant is entitled to sentencing 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.' 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). However,
it is the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons,
and not the district court, that is authorized pursuant to
§ 3585(b) to grant a defendant credit for time served
prior to sentencing. [United States v. Wilson, 503
U.S. 329, 333 (1992)]…A prisoner may seek
administrative review of the computation of this credit,
see 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Wilson, 503
U.S. at 335; McClain v. Bureau of Prisons, 9 F.3d
503, 505 (6th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Dowling, 962 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 1334, at *1 (6th
Smith, Wilmond Smith sought an 11-month credit
towards his 40-month sentence. Id. This district
court denied Smith's motion for credit. Id. The
Sixth Circuit affirmed stating, “Smith ha[d] not shown
and d[id] not even claim the he ha[d] pursued his
administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons as
Court in its last Opinion denied Santana's motion, in
part, because he had not indicated that he exhausted his
administrative remedies. [DN 189 at 2.] In the present
motion, Santana states that he has “petitioned and
exhausted all administrative remedies with the U.S. Bureau of
Prisons. [DN 170 AT 1.] However, he has not provided any
evidence of doing so. The Court cannot accept Santana's
statement that he has exhausted all administrative remedies
without more proof. Without proof that he has exhausted all
administrative remedies, his motion must be denied.
Court further agrees with the United States that this court
does not have jurisdiction to consider this motion. Santana
is not attacking his sentence. Rather, he is attacking
computation or execution of his sentence. “Federal
prisoners may use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to attack the manner
in which their sentences are being executed, such as the
computation of sentence credits”. Tingle v.
Woosley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145942 *3 (W.D. Ky. Oct.
21, 2016) (citing Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d
1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998). “For a petition that
challenges computation of a sentence, jurisdiction is proper
only in the district of confinement.” Childress v.
Coakley, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109597 *10 (N.D. Ohio
July 16, 2015) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 442 (2004).
Santana is located at the Federal Prison Camp in Millington,
Tennessee. This Court does not have jurisdiction over Santana
and therefore does not have jurisdiction over this motion.
Santana further asks this Court to grant him credit
“due to isolation violating his constitutional rights
against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court need not
address whether Santana's confinement was ...