United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE.
Joseph Tooley, who is currently incarcerated in the Federal
Correctional Institution located in Greenville, Illinois
(“FCI-Greenville”), brings this habeas corpus
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Tooley
challenges the calculation of his federal sentence in
United States v. Ahmad, et al., No. 15-cr-06007-BP-9
(W.D. Mo.) (“federal criminal case”). He seeks
credit for 17 months he spent in custody before the
commencement of his federal sentence. (Doc. 1, p. 2).
matter is now before the Court for review of the § 2241
Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §
2254 Cases in United States District Courts, which provides
that upon preliminary consideration by the district court
judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the
petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court
the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus
April 15, 2015, Joseph Tooley was indicted by a federal grand
jury sitting in the Western District of Missouri for one
count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and
846 (“Count 1”). United States v. Ahmad, et
al., No. 15-cr-06007-BP-9 (W.D. Mo.) (Doc. 1, federal
criminal case). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Tooley pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine on September 29, 2016. (Docs. 192, 194,
federal criminal case).
written plea agreement, both parties acknowledged the
statutory penalty Tooley faced, including a sentencing range
of “not less than five (5) years imprisonment”
and “not more than forty (40) years imprisonment and
not more than a $5, 000, 000.00 fine.” (Doc. 194, p. 4,
federal criminal case). They also acknowledged that the Court
was required to impose “not less than four (4) years of
supervised release” for the Class B felony.
Id. In addition, a money judgment would be entered
against him in an amount “not to exceed $494,
200.00.” (Doc. 194, p. 5). The plea agreement also
addressed sentencing procedures that would be used by the
court. (Doc. 194, pp. 5-7).
March 7, 2017, Tooley was sentenced in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri to a
110-month term of imprisonment for Count 1 “to run
concurrent with Circuit Court of Jackson County, MO No.
1216-CR04755 w/ credit for time served.” (Doc. 234,
federal criminal case). He was subject to five (5) years of
supervised release and a forfeiture of $23, 800.00.
Id. Final Judgment was entered the same day.
Id. An amended judgment that addressed the special
conditions of supervision was entered on April 3, 2017. (Doc.
252, federal criminal case). Tooley did not file a direct
December 22, 2017, he filed a motion to vacate his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tooley v. United
States, No. 17-cv-06153-BP (W.D. Mo. 2017) (§ 2255
Motion). In his § 2255 Motion, Tooley argued that he
should be awarded credit for 17 months he spent in detention
prior to the commencement of his federal sentence. (Doc. 1,
§ 2255 Motion). The Western District of Missouri denied
the § 2255 Motion on March 28, 2018. (Doc. 10, §
2255 Motion). The district court directed Tooley to seek
judicial review of the matter by filing a federal habeas
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district
where he is confined, after first exhausting his
administrative remedies. Id. The instant habeas
§ 2241 Petition, Tooley asks this Court to review the
computation of credits he received toward his federal
sentence. (Doc. 1). Tooley explained that he was sentenced to
a term of 110 months in federal prison to run concurrently
with a state sentence he was serving in Jackson County No.
1216-04755. (Doc. 1, pp. 6, 8). Tooley contends that he
should have also received a credit of 17 months for time he
spent in detention before his federal sentence began.
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) allegedly gave
him some portion of this credit. Id. He now asks
this Court to award him all 17 months of credit. (Doc. 1, p.
8). Along with the § 2241 Petition, Tooley submitted
documentation of his efforts to exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing this action. (Doc. 1, pp. 10-18).
federal prisoner who challenges the validity of his
conviction or sentence is generally required to bring his
claim in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district of
conviction. Kramer v. Olson, 347 F.3d 214, 217 (7th
Cir. 2003). When the prisoner “is attacking the fact or
length of his confinement in a federal prison on the basis of
something that happened after he was convicted and sentenced,
habeas corpus is the right remedy.” Waletzki v.
Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079, 1080 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations
omitted) (emphasis added). Tooley is attacking the length of
his confinement, based on the BOP's alleged failure to
award him credit for time he spent in presentence custody.
See United States v. Wilson, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 1355
(1992) (Attorney General, acting through the BOP, calculates
the sentence “as an administrative matter when
imprisoning the defendant”). The calculation of the
sentence can be challenged in a habeas petition under §
2241. Romandine v. United States, 206 F.3d 731, 736
(7th Cir. 2000). However, this can only be done after the
petitioner exhausts his administrative remedies. Clemente
v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997).
commenting on the merits of Tooley's claim, the Court
concludes that the Petition survives preliminary review under
Rule 4 and Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing ...