Flores v. United States
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:22-cv-08922
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Flores v. Jusino, Judge Hixson ordered the warden to explain why Romelia Flores should not receive relief over allegedly missing sentence credit.
Romelia Flores and Warden Thahesha Jusino, as the respondent required to answer the sentence-credit petition.
What happened
In Flores v. Jusino, Romelia Flores, who is serving a federal sentence, filed a petition without a lawyer challenging how the Bureau of Prisons calculated her sentence. She alleged that the federal sentencing court ordered her federal and state sentences to run at the same time, but that she did not receive credit for 30 months spent in state custody.
The court found that the petition stated a legally recognizable claim and ordered the warden to explain why relief should not be granted. It did not decide whether Flores is entitled to sentence credit. The court also replaced the previously named respondent with Warden Thahesha Jusino, Flores’s current custodian.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered the warden to file an answer within 91 days, although the warden may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Flores may respond to either filing under the deadlines stated in the order.
The detailed version
- Flores v. United States · No. 3:22-cv-08922
- Thomas Hixson
- Jan. 29, 2023
Background
Romelia Flores, an inmate at Federal Correctional Institution—Dublin, filed this action without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A petition under Section 2241 is a federal court request challenging the execution or calculation of a sentence. Flores paid the filing fee.
Flores had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering and received a 240-month sentence. Her petition alleged that the federal sentencing court ordered her federal sentence to run concurrently with her state sentence. She further alleged that the Bureau of Prisons failed to credit her federal sentence for the 30 months she spent in state custody.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that challenges to the execution of a federal sentence are properly brought under Section 2241. Applying the rule that courts generally read petitions filed without a lawyer generously, the court concluded that Flores’s petition stated a cognizable claim. “Cognizable” here means a claim the court may consider under the applicable law. The court did not decide whether the Bureau of Prisons correctly calculated Flores’s sentence or whether Flores should receive the requested credit.
Order
The court directed the clerk to substitute Warden Thahesha Jusino for the previously named respondent because Jusino is Flores’s current custodian. The clerk was also directed to serve the order and petition materials on the respondent and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, and to mail Flores the order and a form concerning magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
The court ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 91 days, explaining why federal relief should not be granted on the claims found cognizable. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that same period. If an answer is filed, Flores may submit a response within 35 days after the answer. If a motion to dismiss is filed, the order sets separate deadlines for Flores’s opposition and the respondent’s reply.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson also reminded Flores that court filings must be served on the respondent’s counsel, that she must keep the court informed of address changes, and that failure to comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The opinion is an order requiring a response; it is not a final ruling on the sentence-credit claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.