Rivera v. Doerer

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in Felix A. Rivera, Jr.’s § 2241 habeas proceeding. The court denied Rivera’s motion to dismiss, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss to the extent the petition was denied on the merits, and denied the petition based on the finding that the Bureau of Prisons correctly calculated his sentence credits. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. The court denied Rivera's motion to dismiss the federal indictment because the indictment challenge was unrelated to his § 2241 claim concerning execution of his sentence and challenged determinations made by separate entities.
2. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider Rivera's construed § 2255 challenge to the legality of his confinement because such a challenge must be brought in the court of conviction, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
3. The BOP did not err in calculating Rivera's sentence, and Rivera was not entitled to separate or additional credit for time spent in state custody or temporarily in federal custody when that time had already been credited toward his state sentence.
4. The court adopted the findings and recommendations because Rivera's single-sentence objection did not specifically address the magistrate judge's factual or legal findings.
5. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability to the extent the petition was a disguised § 2255 motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rivera's motion to dismiss the federal indictment under Rule 12(b)(1) could be considered in this § 2241 proceeding.
2. Whether the district court had jurisdiction in a § 2241 proceeding to consider Rivera's challenge to the legality of his confinement or federal sentence, which was properly brought under § 2255 in the sentencing court.
3. Whether the BOP correctly calculated Rivera's sentence and whether he was entitled to additional credit for time already credited toward his state sentence.
4. Whether Rivera's nonspecific objection to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations warranted rejection of those findings.
5. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue to the extent the petition was treated as a disguised § 2255 motion.

Disposition

dismissed