Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gonzalez v. Grondolsky

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

January 21, 2016

ESTEBAN GONZALEZ, Petitioner,
v.
J. GRONDOLSKY, WARDEN, Respondent

         Decided January 20, 2016

          Esteban Gonzalez, Petitioner, Pro se, YANKTON, SD.

         For J Grondolsky, Respondent: Karen L. Goodwin, LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Attorney's Office, Springfield, MA.

         MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 17)

         MARK G. MASTROIANNI, United States District Judge.

         I. Introduction

         Esteban Gonzalez (" Petitioner" ), a federal prisoner formerly in custody at FMC Devens in Ayer, Massachusetts, filed a self-prepared petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks a two-hundred and sixty-five-day reduction of his federal sentence for time spent " at liberty" after state officials erroneously released him instead of transferring him directly to federal custody to continue serving his concurrent federal sentence.

         Jeffrey Grondolsky (" Respondent" ), Warden of Federal Medical Center--Devens, filed a motion to dismiss. On July 15, 2015, however, the court converted Respondent's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment because Respondent submitted materials which went outside the facts alleged in the petition. See Gonzalez v. Grondolsky, 2015 WL 4274183, at *2-3 (D. Mass. July 15, 2015). The court provided Petitioner with an opportunity to supplement the record, which he did. (Dkt. No. 28.) Respondent thereafter filed his own supplemental memorandum. (Dkt. No. 31.) During this process, the court discovered that Petitioner no longer was detained at FMC Devens. (Dkt. Nos. 26, 27.) He is now housed in a federal prison camp in Yankton, South Dakota. (Dkt. No. 28.) In light of this new information, the court will dismiss the petition without prejudice to Petitioner refiling in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota and naming the warden of the Yankton facility as the respondent.

         II. Background and Procedural History[1]

         On July 10, 2006, Petitioner was arrested in Kleberg County, Texas for violation of probation in Case No. 01-CFR-201. On July 20, 2006, he was temporarily transferred to federal custody to face federal charges. On December 20, 2007, Petitioner was sentenced for the federal charges in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to a 160-month term of imprisonment in United States v. Gonzalez, No. 06-CR-00556-002. The sentencing court ordered the federal sentence to run concurrently with any state sentence imposed in Case No. 01-CRF-201. On March 6, 2008, Petitioner was returned to the custody of state officials. Thereafter, on May 29, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced in Kleberg County, Texas, in Case No. 01-CRF-201, to a five-year term of imprisonment to be served in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The U.S. Marshals Service placed a detainer on Petitioner, dated July 17, 2008, and forwarded it to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

         On July 25, 2008, while in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Petitioner was arrested by Nueces County, Texas officials, in connection with Case No. 06-1906-G. On October 29, 2008, Petitioner satisfied the sentence in Case No. 01-CFR-201 but remained in Nueces County custody due to Case. No. 06-1906-G. On November 13, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced in Case No. 06-1906-G to a twenty-year term of imprisonment with credit for time served. On February 2, 2009, Petitioner was returned to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from Nueces County. On June 28, 2012, Petitioner was paroled from his state sentence in Case No. 06-1906-G and erroneously released; he should have been placed directly into federal custody. On March 21, 2013, federal officials arrested Petitioner for service of his federal sentence.

         The Federal Bureau of Prisons (" BOP" ) has computed Petitioner's federal sentence as follows. Petitioner received credit for the time he spent in state custody from July 10, 2006, the date of his initial arrest by state officials, through December 19, 2007. His federal term commenced on December 20, 2007, the date it was imposed, in order to effectuate concurrent service as ordered by the sentencing court, until his release from state custody. However, the BOP has not credited Petitioner with the 265 days between his release from state custody on June 28, 2012 and his federal arrest on March 21, 2013, because he was not in custody during that time and, therefore, it is considered " inoperative time." Petitioner's projected release date, assuming he receives all Good Conduct Time available to him under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), is November 11, 2018.

         On October 10, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. No. 8.) After Respondent failed to respond, despite two service orders issued by the court on October 10, 2014 and January 9, 2015 directing him to do so,[2] the court issued Respondent a show-cause order on February 20, 2015. (Dkt. No. 14.) On March 6, 2015, Respondent's counsel filed a notice of appearance, a response to the court's show-cause order, and a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 16-18.) As mentioned, the court converted Respondent's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment on July 15, 2015, because Respondent submitted materials beyond the scope of the pleadings. See Gonzalez v. Grondolsky, 2015 WL 4274183, at *2-3.[3] In light of this conversion, the court provided both parties an opportunity to supplement the record. Id. at *3. Subsequently, the court discovered that Plaintiff had been transferred from FMC Devens to a federal facility in South Dakota. (Dkt. Nos. 26, 27.) Thereafter, Petitioner confirmed his new address in " Yankton, South Dakota in a Federal Prison Camp." (Dkt. No. 28.)

         III. Analysis

         In light of Petitioner's transfer outside of this district, the court deems it necessary to address the propriety of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.