United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
January 20, 2016
Esteban Gonzalez, Petitioner, Pro se, YANKTON, SD.
Grondolsky, Respondent: Karen L. Goodwin, LEAD ATTORNEY,
United States Attorney's Office, Springfield, MA.
AND ORDER REGARDING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 17)
MASTROIANNI, United States District Judge.
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
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.
Background and Procedural
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.
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 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
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, 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. 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.)
light of Petitioner's transfer outside of this district,
the court deems it necessary to address the propriety of