Carver v. United States

Background

Jessica Lynn Carver, a federal prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California, filed a “Request for Credit of Home Monitoring System Time” in the Western District of Washington. The matter was treated as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a law allowing a prisoner to challenge the execution or administration of a federal sentence, and was transferred to the Northern District of California.

Carver said she was sentenced on October 6, 2017, to 60 months in federal prison. She sought credit for the period from her release on bond on January 23, 2017, through her sentencing date. She argued that receiving this credit would have resulted in her release on March 26, 2020. The United States responded that the petition should be dismissed because Carver had not exhausted available administrative remedies and argued alternatively that her claim failed on the merits.

Administrative exhaustion

The court explained that although § 2241 does not expressly require exhaustion of administrative remedies, courts generally require petitioners to complete available administrative review before seeking relief. Exhaustion can be excused when the administrative remedy is inadequate or ineffective, pursuing it would be futile or cause irreparable injury, or an official Bureau of Prisons policy would require denial of the claim.

The Bureau of Prisons’ process generally requires an inmate to pursue a claim through three levels: the warden, the regional director, and the final administrative appeal. Carver provided documents showing that she pursued informal relief and sought review from the warden. She did not provide evidence that she appealed to the second or third levels. The United States submitted records supporting that showing.

Carver did not rebut the United States’ evidence or argue that her failure to complete the process should be excused. The court therefore declined to excuse the failure to exhaust. The court also noted that Carver had not taken additional steps to exhaust after being notified that exhaustion was necessary.

Merits ruling

The court separately addressed the substance of Carver’s claim. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), sentencing credit is available for time spent in “official detention” before the sentence begins. The court held that home confinement is not official detention for purposes of that statute and therefore does not qualify for the requested sentencing credit.

Disposition

The court concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Carver had not exhausted her claim or shown that exhaustion should be excused, and because the claim would fail on the merits even if it had been exhausted. The court dismissed the federal habeas action and directed the Clerk to close the file. It stated that a federal prisoner challenging execution of a sentence does not need a certificate of appealability to appeal a denial of a § 2241 petition.