United States District Court, D. Colorado
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Y. WANG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter comes before the court on Petitioner Adan
Ramirez's (“Petitioner” or “Mr.
Ramirez”) Amended Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the
“Application”). [#4, filed Aug. 7, 2017]. The
undersigned considers the Application pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) and the Order of Reference dated October 3,
2017 [#18]. The court has reviewed the Application and
associated briefing, the entire case file, and the applicable
law, and has concluded that oral argument will not materially
assist in the resolution of this matter. For the reasons
stated herein, this court DENIES the
record reveals the following facts. On June 10, 2014,
officers of the Greeley Police Department arrested Mr.
Ramirez for Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute
Methamphetamine and for violating his parole in three prior
state criminal cases-2008CR606, 2009CR3254, and 2009CR3274.
See [#17-1 at ¶ 7; #17-3 at 3, 11-13; #17-4 at
2-6, 11]. The arrest and parole violation resulted in the
Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”)
revoking Mr. Ramirez's parole on July 8, 2014. [#17-1 at
¶ 7; #17-3 at 3; #17-4 at 8]. Mr. Ramirez's parole
violation carried a three-year prison sentence (the
“state sentence”), which the CDOC commenced as of
March 13, 2014, his original parole date. [#17-1 at ¶ 7;
#17-4 at 8-10]. With earned time credited to this sentence,
Mr. Ramirez's state sentence was to discharge on July 1,
2016. See [#17-1 at ¶ 10; #17-4 at 8-10, 11,
9, 2014, while in state custody, federal authorities arrested
Mr. Ramirez on four counts of drug-related offenses and one
count for possession of a firearm, all in violation of
federal law. See United States of America v.
Ramirez, Criminal No. 14-cr-00249-2-PAB, [ECF Nos. 1, 3,
21]; see also [#17-1 at ¶ 8; #17-2 at 3; #17-3
at 2-3; #17-4 at 11]. Pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus
ad prosequendum, the United States Marshals took Mr.
Ramirez into temporary federal custody and transported him
from Weld County Correction Facility to the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado for his initial
appearance. See [#17-1 at ¶ 8; #17-3 at 3;
#17-4 at 11; #17-5 at 2, 4-5]; see also United States v.
Ramirez, Criminal No. 14-cr-00249-2-PAB, [ECF Nos. 17,
19, 20]. Mr. Ramirez remained in federal custody until his
federal sentencing on March 3, 2016. See [#17-1 at
¶ 9; #17-5 at 2-3; #17-6].
on the federal charges, Mr. Ramirez received a total of 144
months imprisonment (the “federal sentence”) to
run concurrently with his state sentence. See [#17-6
at 4]. Following sentencing in the federal matter, the United
States Marshals inquired as to whether Mr. Ramirez was to be
returned to state custody until the discharge of his state
sentence. [#17-1 at ¶ 10; #17-4 at 13; #17-5 at 2]. The
CDOC responded that Mr. Ramirez's state sentence was
still set to discharge on July 1, 2016, but should the BOP
release him before that date he would need to serve the rest
of his state sentence at a CDOC facility. See [#17-1
at ¶ 10, #17-4 at 13].
Ramirez is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution (“FCI”) in Florence, Colorado; his
projected release date is August 16, 2026. See [#4
at 5; #17-1 at ¶¶ 4, 9; #17-2 at 3]. He filed the
instant Application on July 13, 2017, which he subsequently
re-submitted on the proper form on August 7, 2017.
See [#1; #4]. In the Application, Mr. Ramirez argues
the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) never
credited him for the time spent in custody from his initial
arrest on June 10, 2014, to his federal sentencing on March
3, 2016, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) and his
Fifth Amendment due process rights. [#4]. According to Mr.
Ramirez, he is entitled to a 572-day reduction in his federal
sentence, based on his presentence confinement.
C.R. Goetz (“Respondent” or “Warden
Goetz”) filed a Response on October 3, 2017. [#17].
Though advised of his right to file a Reply by October 24,
2017, see [#19], no Reply was ever received. The
Application is now ripe for disposition, and the court
considers the Parties' arguments below.
application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 “is an attack by a person in custody upon
the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional
function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n,
115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)); see also
Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996)
(noting an application under § 2241 attacks the
execution of a sentence, not its validity). This includes
challenges to the computation of a prisoner's sentence.
See Atkins v. Garcia, 816 F.Supp.2d 1108, 1110-13
(D. Colo. 2011). Habeas corpus relief is warranted only if
Mr. Ramirez “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Mr. Ramirez proceeds pro se the court liberally
construes his filings, but, in doing so, does not act as his
advocate. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991). Moreover, the court applies the same procedural
rules and substantive law to Mr. Ramirez as to a represented
party. See Murray v. City of Tahlequah, 312 F.3d
1196, 1199 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008); Dodson v. Bd. of Cty.
Comm'rs, 878 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1236 (D. Colo. 2012).
mentioned, Petitioner asserts he is entitled to 572 days of
presentence credit for his time spent in custody from his
arrest on June 10, 2014, to his federal sentencing on March
3, 2016. [#4 at 2, 5, 6]. Mr. Ramirez argues the BOP should
have credited all of this time towards his 144-month federal
sentence, but did not do so in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b). [Id.]. Mr. Ramirez continues that the BOP
was required to credit this time, because the “federal
government never filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad
Prosequemdum [sic] with the state requesting [his] person for
the purpose of the judicial proceedings had in relation to
the federal case, ” and “the State of
Colorado/[CDOC], lodged a ‘detainer' with the
federal authorities requesting his person at the conclusion
of the federal matter/proceedings.” [Id. at
6]. According to Mr. Ramirez, he is now required to serve
“a term of incarceration that exceeds the sentence
imposed by the court[.]” [Id.].
Goetz responds that Petitioner's Application is premised
on “a misconception of how his state sentence affected
his federal sentence[, ]” such that the BOP applied the
572 days of presentence confinement to Mr. Ramirez's
state sentence. [#17 at 2-3]. Respondent explains that
federal authorities held Petitioner pursuant to a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum, meaning Mr. Ramirez
was still serving his state sentence under state custody
despite being held by federal authorities. [Id. at
3]. Thus, the BOP applied the 572-day credit to his state
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § ...