Perez v. Lake
4:15-cv-00253
D. Ariz.May 11, 2017Background
- Jorge Perez was indicted in D. Nev. and sentenced on August 8, 2013 to 60 months for being a felon in possession of a firearm; he had concurrent Nevada state sentences imposed in October–November 2013.
- Perez was in state custody and was produced to federal court via writ; on June 9, 2014 he was received into federal custody to begin his federal sentence.
- The BOP initially computed his federal sentence as commencing June 9, 2014. Perez sought nunc pro tunc designation of his Nevada state facility; the BOP later granted a nunc pro tunc designation and recomputed his sentence with a projected release of November 2, 2016.
- Perez filed a pro se § 2241 petition (filed June 10, 2015) challenging the BOP’s computation and asserting his release date should be February 29, 2016, relying on Nevada law crediting 40% of certain state terms.
- The BOP exhausted administrative review; the Magistrate Judge recommended substituting the current warden as respondent and dismissed the § 2241 petition as moot because Perez was released from federal custody on September 30, 2016 and the court could no longer provide the requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle / jurisdiction | Perez framed his challenge as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to contest BOP’s execution of his sentence (time-credit calculation). | Respondent argued the claim challenges execution of sentence and thus is properly brought under § 2241 in the custodial court. | Court: Jurisdiction under § 2241 is proper because Perez challenges execution/credit calculation, not the legality of the sentence. |
| Mootness of § 2241 petition | Perez sought an earlier release date (February 29, 2016) based on recharacterization of credits; requested relief was release or recalculation. | Respondent noted Perez was released from custody on September 30, 2016, so the court cannot grant the requested relief. | Court: Petition is moot because Perez’s custody ended and no collateral consequences were shown that keep the case live; dismiss. |
| Nunc pro tunc designation relief | Perez argued BOP’s recomputation remained incorrect even after nunc pro tunc designation and sought further remedy. | BOP had already granted a nunc pro tunc designation and recalculated the sentence; respondent relied on the recomputation and administrative process. | Court: After BOP action and Perez’s subsequent release, there is no live relief available in habeas; mootness bars review. |
| Substitution of respondent | Perez originally named former warden S. Lake. | Respondent requested substitution of the current warden pursuant to Rule 25(d). | Court: Ordered substitution of Filipe Martinez as respondent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing §2255 and §2241 and requiring courts to assess proper habeas vehicle)
- Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (challenges to confinement duration are within habeas corpus jurisdiction)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (release from custody generally renders habeas claims moot absent collateral consequences)
- Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas remedy is limited to securing release from unlawful custody)
- Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1997) (a §2241 challenge to conditions or location of confinement is moot upon release)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction under Article III)
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) (courts must independently examine jurisdiction)