From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Coleman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Jan 29, 2018
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 14-151 SECTION "R" (3) (E.D. La. Jan. 29, 2018)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 14-151 SECTION "R" (3)

01-29-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICKEY COLEMAN


ORDER AND REASONS

On April 20, 2015, defendant Rickey Coleman pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to make false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On August 26, 2015, the Court sentenced Coleman to 60 months imprisonment. Coleman now moves for credit for time served in state custody before his federal sentencing. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.

R. Doc. 56 at 1.

Id. at 1-2.

R. Doc. 70.

Because Coleman challenges the duration of his sentence, the Court construes his motion as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992) (explaining that a motion for credit for time served should be filed as a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). In order to entertain jurisdiction over a section 2241 habeas petition, the federal district court must have jurisdiction over the petitioner or his custodian when the petition is filed. See United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1990). A petitioner must file his section 2241 petition in the federal district in which he is incarcerated. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000); Cleto, 956 F.2d at 84. Here, it is undisputed that Coleman filed this petition from the federal penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, which is in the Eastern District of Texas. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to afford Coleman the relief he seeks. Coleman must file his petition in the Eastern District of Texas.

R. Doc. 70. --------

Additionally, the petition is not properly before the Court because Coleman has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993) (explaining that "a § 2241 petitioner 'must first exhaust his administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons'") (quoting Gabor, 905 F.2d at 78 n.2).

For the foregoing reasons, Coleman's motion is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of January, 2018.

/s/_________

SARAH S. VANCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Coleman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Jan 29, 2018
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 14-151 SECTION "R" (3) (E.D. La. Jan. 29, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICKEY COLEMAN

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Jan 29, 2018

Citations

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 14-151 SECTION "R" (3) (E.D. La. Jan. 29, 2018)