United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
JUAN B. RODRIGUEZ PLAINTIFF
E. BRADLEY, Warden DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") (Doc. 5) of the Honorable James R.
Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas, filed in this case on February 16,
2017, concerning Plaintiff Juan B. Rodriguez's 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 Motion (Doc. 1). In the R&R, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that the Court dismiss the Motion without
prejudice. Rodriguez filed Objections to the R&R (Doc.
6), and, in response, the Court has now conducted a de
novo review as to all proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
following chronology of events is helpful to an understanding
of Rodriguez' Motion:
• January 14, 2010. As the result of a search conducted
by his state parole officer, Rodriguez was arrested, taken
into custody, and subsequently charged by the State of
Arkansas with possession of methamphetamine with the intent
to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia.
• February 1, 2010. Rodriguez signed a waiver of his
right to a parole revocation hearing, which had the effect of
revoking his parole for a period of approximately six
• March 31, 2010. Rodriguez was indicted in this Court
on charges of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine,
possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, and
use of a residence for the purpose of distributing
• April 1, 2010. The Court entered an Order for Writ of
Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum, directing the U.S. Marshal to
secure Rodriguez from the Benton County Jail, and to hold him
in federal custody pending further proceedings in this Court.
• July 20, 2010. Rodriguez presented a plea agreement to
the Court and entered a guilty plea to Count 2 of the
• November 16, 2010. The Court sentenced Rodriguez to
135 months incarceration in the BOP, five years of supervised
release, a $15, 000.00 fine and a $100.00 special
• November 22, 2010. The U.S. Marshal returned Rodriguez
to the custody of the State of Arkansas.
• May 16, 2011. Rodriguez was released from state
custody and was thereafter transferred to federal custody to
begin serving his federal sentence.
exhausting his administrative remedies, Rodriguez brought the
instant Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In the
Motion, Rodriguez requests jail credit towards his federal
sentence for the time period of January 14, 2010 to November
22, 2010-approximately 312 days-pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b). However, in order for a court to have jurisdiction
over a § 2241 petition, it "must be filed in either
the district where the prisoner is confined . . ., in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or
in any district in which the Bureau of Prisons maintains a
regional office." United States v.
Coria-Hernandez, 2015 WL 12828173, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Aug.
12, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, 2015
WL 12844390 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 9, 2015) (citing United
States v, Chappet, 208 F.3d 1069, 1070 (8th Cir. 2000));
United States v. Feist, 346 F.App'x 127, 128 (8th
Cir. 2009). Because Rodriguez is not confined in the Western
District of Arkansas and the Bureau of Prisons does not
maintain a regional office in the Western District of
Arkansas,  this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his
habeas petition. He may, of course, refile his petition in
the district where he is confined, or in any of the other
districts identified in the R&R as proper.
respect to the R&R's discussion of the merits of
Rodriguez's petition, the Court does not specifically
disagree with the Magistrate Judge's analysis, but it
finds that ruling on the merits is inadvisable given the fact
that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. The
Court believes that not ruling on the merits is prudent given
the fact that Rodriguez may refiie the petition at a later
date in a court where jurisdiction is proper, which would
allow that court to perform a thorough review of the merits.
the Court ADOPTS IN PART AND DECLINES TO ADOPT IN PART the
R&R (Doc. 5). The Court ADOPTS the analysis and
conclusion set forth in the R&R regarding § 2241
jurisdiction. The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the section of the
R&R that addresses the merits of the Motion. Therefore,
Plaintiff Juan B. Rodriguez's 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Motion (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED ...