Opinion
5:22-CV-250-TES-MSH
08-19-2022
TAOFEEQ OLAMILEKAN OYELADE, Petitioner, v. Warden STACEY N. STONE, Respondent.
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
STEPHEN HYLES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Taofeeq Olamilekan Oyelade, a federal prisoner in the McRae Correctional Institute in McRae, Georgia, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. He also filed a “Petition for Federal Time Credit Pursuant to First Step Act Law of 2018.” ECF No. 2. This petition has been docketed as a “Motion for Federal Time Credit Pursuant to First Step Act Law of 2018.” Id. Petitioner paid a $5.00 filing fee.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires a federal court to screen a habeas petition prior to any answer or other pleading. This Rule applies to habeas actions under both 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See R. 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 (“[T]he district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas petition not covered by Rule 1(a).”). Rule 4 requires that the petition be dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” R. 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also R. 4, Rules Governing § 2255 motions (“If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.”)
Petitioner states he is serving a sentence after having been convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. ECF No. 1 at 1. He states he was sentenced on April 27, 2017. Id.; ECF No. 14 in United States v. Oyelade, 1:16-cr-112-HSO-JCG-1 (S.D.Miss. Apr. 28, 2017).
In his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, Petitioner states he is challenging “Federal Time Credits.” ECF No. 1 at 2. He alleges that on June 27, 2022, he was deprived of “federal time credits under [the] First Step Act Law of 2018.” Id. According to Petitioner, “Respondent has taken the position that because Petitioner is an alien and currently has an unresolved detainer, he is statutorily ineligible to earn F.T.C.” Id. He asks the Court to compel Respondent and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to apply the “federal time credit that he is constitutionally entitled to.” Id. at 7. In his “Petition for Federal Time Credit Pursuant to First Step Act Law of 2018,” Petitioner states he has not exhausted administrative remedies but requests the Court to grant “Federal Time Credits.” ECF No. 2 at 1-3.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia does not have jurisdiction. A § 2241 action is the correct vehicle for challenging how a sentence is being carried out, calculated, or credited. But a § 2241 “petition[] may be brought only in the district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated.” Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Pruitt, 417 Fed.Appx. 903, 904 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, to the extent Petitioner is complaining about the Federal Bureau of Prison's calculation of his sentence, he needs to file a § 2241 petition in the Southern District of Georgia because he is incarcerated in McRae, Georgia, which is located in the Southern District of Georgia.
To any extent that Petitioner is actually seeking relief under the First Step Act, he needs to file a motion in his underlying criminal case in the Southern District of Mississippi. See United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003). Either way, the Middle District of Georgia does not have jurisdiction. It is, therefore, recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. Pruitt, 417 Fed.Appx. at 904; Fleming v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 1:13-cv-1364-TWT, 2013 WL 2446303 at *1 (N.D.Ga. 2013) (recommending dismissal of § 2241 action for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner was not detained in the Northern District of Georgia).
Transfer of this action would not be “in the interest of justice” because it is unclear to which Court (the Southern District of Georgia or the Southern District of Mississippi) the action should be transferred. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The dismissal is without prejudice, and Petitioner can file the petition or motion in the appropriate court.
It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's § 2241 petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. To the extent that Petitioner's “Petition for Federal Time Credit Pursuant to First Step Act Law of 2018” is construed as a motion, it is RECOMMENDED that it be DENIED. ECF No. 2.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Plaintiff may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation with District Judge Tilman E. Self, III WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of this Recommendation. Plaintiff may seek an extension of time in which to file written objections, provided a request for an extension is filed prior to the deadline for filing written objections. Failure to object in accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district judge's order based on factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
SO RECOMMENDED,