United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ROBERT M. JOOST, Petitioner,
US PROBATION, RHODE ISLAND, et a Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
B. SARIS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are Robert M. Joost's pro se Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. For the reasons stated
herein, the Court denies Joost relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, denies preliminary injunctive relief, construes the
petition as a motion to modify conditions of release, and
directs the Clerk to send it to the sentencing court in Rhode
Island for further proceedings.
March 17, 2017, petitioner Robert M. Joost
(“Joost”) filed his self-prepared Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Joost paid the $5 filing fee. The petition names as
respondents the United States Bureau of Prisons, Coolidge
House, and the probation offices for both the District of
Rhode Island and the District of Massachusetts.
is completing service of a federal sentence imposed in the
District of Rhode Island. United States v. Joost,
C.R. No. 94-055-ML (D.R.I. Sept. 8, 1995) (firearms
conviction with sentence of 360 months and 5 years supervised
release); see also United States v. Joost,
C.R. No. 94-056-ML (D.R.I. Sept. 8, 1995) (Hobbs Act
conspiracy conviction for role in an armored car robbery with
20 year sentence and 5 years supervised release both to run
concurrent with C.R. No. 94-055-ML).
October 4, 2016, Joost was transferred from FMC Devens to
Coolidge House, a halfway house in Boston. Joost states that
his supervised release is scheduled to begin upon his release
from Coolidge House on March 30, 2017. Joost complains that
upon his release from Coolidge House, he will be required to
report for supervised release in the District of Rhode
Island. Joost seeks to remain in Massachusetts and report to
the District of Massachusetts because he is employed in
Massachusetts, has a son in Massachusetts and is seeking
benefits from the Massachusetts Department of Veterans'
Services. Moreover, Joost complains that his stay at Coolidge
House will be extended if he is unable to secure his own
housing by March 30, 2017.
March 20, 2017, Joost filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin his confinement at Coolidge
House after March 30, 2017, and to allow him to remain in
Massachusetts after March 30, 2017. With his motion, Joost
filed a supporting memorandum.
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, federal prisoners who are “in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States, ” may seek habeas corpus review.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Fundamentally, a Section 2241
habeas proceeding “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.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
484 (1973). Thus, a traditional habeas petition challenges
the “fact or duration” of physical confinement
and seeks either immediate or speedier release from that
confinement. Id. at 498. However, review under
Section 2241 is also available to a federal prisoner who
challenges the manner, execution, or conditions of a
sentence. Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29, 33-34 (1st
threshold question in this matter is whether this action is
properly filed pursuant to § 2241. Here, as to the
execution of his sentence pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. §
2241, the sentencing court in Rhode Island has the ability to
modify the conditions of his supervised release under 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e). See 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(2) (permits a district court to "modify, reduce,
or enlarge the conditions of supervised release, at any time
prior to the expiration or termination of the term of
supervised release, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of
probation and the provisions applicable to the initial
setting of the terms and conditions of post-release
supervision."). Thus, Joost's remedy lies with the
sentencing court. Id.; see 18 U.S.C. §
3605 (authorizing a court to exercise jurisdiction over a
person on supervised release if such jurisdiction has been
transferred by the sentencing court).
Court is without the power to modify the conditions of
Joost's supervised release and the Court finds that it is
in the interest of justice to treat the petition as a motion
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and forward it to the
District of Rhode Island for filing in United States v.
Joost, C.R. No. 94-055-ML (D.R.I. Sept. 8, 1995).