Martinez v. Paul
- John Tunheim
- 0:18-cv-01260
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Martinez v. Paul, Judge Tunheim denied Martinez’s habeas petition, ruling that the Bureau of Prisons did not abuse its discretion by not contacting his sentencing judge.
Jose Monserrato Martinez, Jr. and the Bureau of Prisons, with Warden David Paul named as the respondent.
What happened
Jose Monserrato Martinez, Jr. asked the court to order the Bureau of Prisons to reconsider how it calculated his federal sentence. He argued that the Bureau should have contacted the federal sentencing judge about making his federal sentence run at the same time as his Iowa sentence.
The Bureau had credited Martinez with 22 days of Iowa custody but not the later period before his federal sentencing, because that time had been credited toward his state sentence. Martinez argued that the Bureau should have used a retroactive designation to give him the requested federal credit.
Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Martinez’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied the petition. The court held that the Bureau did not abuse its discretion because the sentencing judgment clearly said the federal sentence would run concurrently only with the undischarged remainder of the Iowa sentence.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Paul · No. 0:18-cv-01260
- John Tunheim
- May 28, 2019
Background
Jose Monserrato Martinez, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge the execution or calculation of a sentence. Martinez was arrested by Iowa authorities on August 25, 2011, and sentenced by an Iowa court to 120 months in prison on September 16, 2011. He was later transferred to federal custody while facing federal charges based on the same conduct.
On August 24, 2012, a federal judge sentenced Martinez to 120 months, stating that the sentence would be served concurrently with the “undischarged terms” of his Iowa sentence. Martinez returned to Iowa custody and completed his state sentence on April 16, 2013, after which he returned to federal custody.
The Bureau of Prisons credited Martinez for the 22 days he spent in Iowa custody before his state sentencing. It did not credit him for the period from September 16, 2011, through August 23, 2012, because that period had been credited toward his state sentence. The Bureau denied Martinez’s administrative requests for that credit, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
Martinez’s request and the recommendation
Martinez argued that the Bureau abused its discretion by refusing to contact the federal sentencing judge about a “nunc pro tunc” designation. In this context, that term means a retroactive designation of the state prison as the place where the federal sentence began, which can make the federal and state sentences run concurrently.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended denying the petition for two reasons. First, she concluded that § 3585 barred credit for the disputed period because Martinez had already received credit for it against his state sentence. Second, she concluded that the Bureau did not abuse its discretion by failing to contact the federal sentencing judge because the judgment clearly limited concurrency to the undischarged portion of the state sentence.
Martinez objected only to the second conclusion. He asked the district court to order the Bureau to consider his request and contact the federal sentencing judge.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that the Bureau has a duty to review requests for retroactive designations but broad discretion in deciding them. Federal law permits the Bureau to consider several factors, including the sentencing court’s recommendation. The court also noted that a district court cannot compel the Bureau to grant such a designation.
The court did not decide whether § 3585 independently barred the requested designation because it concluded that the Bureau did not abuse its discretion in any event. The federal sentencing judgment clearly stated that Martinez’s sentence would run concurrently with the “undischarged terms” of the Iowa sentence. The court understood that language to mean that concurrency began when Martinez was federally sentenced and applied only to the remaining part of his state sentence. Because the sentencing judge’s intent was clear, the Bureau had no abuse-of-discretion obligation to contact that judge.
Disposition
Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Martinez’s objection, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and denied Martinez’s § 2241 petition. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.