Paul Pedro Glanton v. Federal Bureau of Prison et al, No. 2:2015cv01267 - Document 12 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. *See Order for details.* (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Paul Pedro Glanton v. Federal Bureau of Prison et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 12 PAUL PEDRO GLANTON, Petitioner, 13 14 ) Case No. CV 15-1267-AS ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ) ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) ) ) ) ) ) v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 15 RICHARD B. IVES, Warden, 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the parties have consented that the case may be handled by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (See Docket Entry Nos. 5, 6, 9). 21 I. 22 INTRODUCTION 23 24 25 26 27 28 On November 19, 2013, Paul Pedro Glanton (“Petitioner”), in federal custody, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (“Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Entry No. 1). (Docket The Petition challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to credit against Petitioner’s federal sentence certain time 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Petitioner spent in state custody prior to the imposition of the federal 2 sentence. Specifically, Petitioner contends that his federal sentence 3 should be credited for the time he spent in Florida state custody, from 4 July 11, 1996 through July 15, 1997. (See Petition at 3; Memorandum of 5 Law with Points and Authorities [“Memorandum”] at 2-9, Attachments A, B 6 and C). On April 28, 2015, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition 7 (“Answer”). (Docket Entry No. 7). On March 21, 2014, Petitioner filed 8 an “Opposition to Respondents Answer Brief” (“Reply”). (Docket Entry No. 9 11). For the reasons stated below, the Petition is DENIED and this 10 action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 11 12 II. BACKGROUND 13 14 On May 12, 1994, following convictions in the Circuit Court of 15 Miami-Dade Florida in four separate matters, Petitioner was sentenced to 16 state prison for concurrent terms of 5 years (case no. 13-9307579), 27 17 years (case no. 13-9307754), 20 years (case no. 13-9307754), and 20 18 years (case no. 13-9309242). (See Memorandum, Exhibit C at 1; Answer, 19 Declaration of Angelicia M. Holland (“Holland Decl.”) ¶ 4). 20 21 On August 24, 1994, Petitioner was transferred from Miami-Dade Jail 22 to the Florida Department of Corrections, South Florida Reception Center 23 to begin serving the above-referenced sentence. (See Memorandum, 24 Exhibit C at 2; Holland Decl. ¶ 5). 25 26 On July 11, 1996, the United States Marshals Service in 27 Tallahasee, Florida lodged a detainer against Petitioner, to allow for 28 Petitioner to stand trial in the United States District Court for the 2 1 Western District of North Carolina on the charge of conspiracy to 2 possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. (See 3 Memorandum, Exhibit C at 2; Holland Decl. ¶ 6). 4 5 On July 12, 1996, pursuant to a federal Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad 6 Prosequendum, Petitioner was transferred from the Florida Department of 7 Corrections to federal custody in order to participate in proceedings in 8 the United States District Court for the Western District of North 9 Carolina. (See Memorandum, Exhibit C at 2; Holland Decl. ¶ 7). 10 11 On May 15, 1997, following Petitioner’s conviction (pursuant to a 12 guilty plea) for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to 13 distribute cocaine and cocaine base in the United States District Court 14 for the Western District of North Carolina (United States of America v. 15 Paul Pedro Glanton, Case No. 3:95-CR-07-01), Petitioner received a 16 sentence of 262 months, which was to run concurrently with the sentences 17 imposed in the Florida state court. (See Holland Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit 18 “A”). 19 20 On July 8, 1997, the United States Marshals Service lodged a 21 detainer with the Florida Department of Corrections to ensure that at 22 the completion of his state sentence Petitioner would be transferred to 23 federal custody in order to complete his federal sentence. (See 24 Memorandum, Exhibit C at 2; Holland Decl. ¶ 9). 25 26 On July 15, 1997, the United States Marshals Service returned 27 Petitioner to the Florida Department of Corrections. 28 Exhibit C at 2; Holland Decl. ¶ 8). 3 (See Memorandum, 1 Following Petitioner’s completion of his state sentence on July 1, 2 2006, Petitioner was transferred to the custody of the Bureau of Prison 3 pursuant to the detainer that had been lodged by the United States 4 Marshals Service. (See Memorandum, Exhibit C at 2; Holland Decl. ¶¶ 105 11, Exhibit “B” at 2). 6 7 The Bureau of Prison has credited the time from May 15, 1997 (the 8 date of the imposition of his federal sentence) through July 15, 1997 9 (the date Petitioner was returned to the Florida Department of 10 Corrections) against Petitioner’s federal sentence. However, the Bureau 11 of Prisons has refused to credit against Petitioner’s federal sentence 12 the time from July 11, 1996 through May 14, 1997, because that time was 13 prior to the imposition of the federal sentence and that time was 14 credited against Petitioner’s Florida state sentence. (See Holland 15 Decl. ¶¶ 12-13). 16 17 According to the Bureau of Prisons, as of April 13, 2015, assuming 18 Petitioner earns all remaining available good time credit, his projected 19 release date is December 6, 2016. (See Holland Decl. ¶ 14, Exhibit 20 “C”). 21 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 24 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a) provides that: “A sentence to a term of 25 imprisonment commences on the date the defendant is received in custody 26 awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service 27 of sentence at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is 28 to be served.” 4 1 2 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) provides that: 3 4 A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term 5 of 6 detention prior to the date the sentence commences–-(1) as a 7 result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or 8 (2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant 9 was arrested after the commission of the offense for which the 10 sentence was imposed; that has not been credited against 11 another sentence (emphasis added). imprisonment for any time he has spent in official 12 13 Here, the Bureau of Prisons properly denied Petitioner credit, 14 against his federal sentence, for the time from July 11, 1996 through 15 May 14, 1997. Petitioner is not entitled to credit prior to the 16 imposition of his federal sentence (May 15, 1997).1 See Schleining v. 17 Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1247-49 (9th Cir. 2011) (the prisoner’s “federal 18 sentence does not begin under 18 U.S.C. § 3585 until he has been 19 sentenced in federal court”). Moreover, Petitioner is not entitled to 20 credit for this time period because he received credit for that time 21 against his state sentence. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 22 337 (1992) (“[C]ongress made clear [in 18 U.S.C. section 3585(b)] that 23 a defendant could not receive double credit for his detention time”); 24 25 26 27 28 1 In his Reply, Petitioner contends that “he should at least be credited with time credited from the date of his admission of guilt.” (see Reply at 6). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) makes it clear that for purposes of receiving credit, the relevant date is the date the sentence was imposed. In any event, Petitioner does not allege, and the Court is unable to determine from the record, the date on which Petitioner admitted guilt in the federal case. 5 1 accord Moore v. Milusnic, 2014 WL 4407577, *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2 2014); Smith v. Williams, 2014 WL 3055900, *4 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2014); 3 see also Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121, 125 n.1 (3rd Cir. 2002) (“A 4 prisoner detained pursuant to a writ ad prosequendum is considered to 5 remain in the primary custody of the first jurisdiction unless and until 6 the first jurisdiction relinquishes jurisdiction over the person. The 7 receiving sovereign - in this case, the federal government - is 8 therefore, considered simply to be ‘borrowing’ the prisoner from the 9 sending sovereign for the purposes of indicting, arraigning, trying, and 10 sentencing him. . . . For the purposes of computing [the petitioner’s] 11 sentence, therefore, the time spent in federal custody pursuant to a 12 writ ad prosequendum is credited toward his state sentence, not his 13 federal sentence.”), superseded on other grounds by U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 14 comment n. 3(E) (2003); Thomas v. Brewer, 932 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th 15 Cir. 1991) (holding that the state retains primary custody over a state 16 prisoner transferred to federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas 17 corpus ad prosequendum).2 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 22 23 24 2 Petitioner argues that the Florida Department of Corrections 25 did not credit his state sentence from July 11, 1996 through July 15, 1997. (See Memorandum at 6-7, citing to Exhibit C at 5). However, that 26 page does not indicate that Petitioner did not receive state sentence credit for that period. (See Memorandum, Exhibit C at 5). Moreover, 27 the Court has not been able to locate any record contradicting the implied assertion that Petitioner received state sentence credit for 28 that period (see Holland Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10, Exhibit “B”).]] 6 1 IV. ORDER 2 3 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is 4 denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. 5 6 Dated: June 2, 2015. 7 8 9 _____________/s/________________ ALKA SAGAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
