Barroca v. Sessions
Civil Action No. 2017-1570
| D.D.C. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Petitioner Robert W. Barroca filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition in the D.C. District Court challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ computation of his sentence (alleging consecutive rather than concurrent service) while incarcerated at FCI Victorville Medium II in California.
- He named the Attorney General and the Acting Director of the Bureau of Prisons as respondents and filed in the District of Columbia.
- The court sua sponte transferred the petition to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California because the proper respondent is the warden at Victorville (the district of confinement).
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay and a Notice of Appeal arguing the D.C. forum was proper because he challenged the Attorney General’s computation and that the court erred by transferring without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
- The court recognized it erred procedurally by not first giving Petitioner an opportunity to be heard (an order to show cause), but concluded the error was harmless because binding D.C. Circuit precedent forecloses Petitioner’s jurisdictional argument and the case must be in the district of confinement.
- The court denied Petitioner’s motion (treated as a motion for reconsideration) and again ordered transfer to the Central District of California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for a § 2241 challenge to sentence computation | Barroca: challenge targets Attorney General’s calculation and thus may be heard in D.C. | Court: habeas claims attacking sentence computation must be filed in district of confinement and name the warden | Transfer to Central District of California affirmed; D.C. is improper forum |
| Proper respondent in a habeas § 2241 action | Barroca: named Attorney General and BOP Acting Director | Court: Rumsfeld requires naming the warden where prisoner is held | Warden of Victorville is proper respondent; BOP officials are improper respondents for this relief |
| Sua sponte transfer without warning | Barroca: court erred by transferring without giving opportunity to be heard | Court: D.C. Circuit permits sua sponte transfer but requires opportunity to be heard first | Court admits procedural error (no order to show cause) but declines to relitigate because result is dictated by precedent |
| Effect of procedural error on relief | Barroca: seeks reconsideration/vacatur of transfer | Court: remedying now would be futile and only delay transfer | Motion for reconsideration denied; transfer remains in place |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (writ of habeas corpus must name custodian—typically the warden—at place of confinement)
- Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir.) (district court may sua sponte transfer habeas petition to jurisdiction of confinement; court should give opportunity to be heard)
- Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036 (D.C. Cir.) (challenge to sentence computation is cognizable under § 2241)
- Hoai v. Vo, 935 F.2d 308 (D.C. Cir.) (district court may consider reconsideration motions while appeal pending)