United States District Court, E.D. Michigan
SCOTT R. DETLOFF, Petitioner,
DAVID ORTIZ, Respondent.
B. SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge
Petitioner Scott R. Detloff is proceeding pro se with a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (Docket Entry 1). He was formerly confined at
FCI Fort Dix in this District and is presently confined at
FCI Milan in the Eastern District of Michigan.
Petitioner was arrested by the State of Michigan on October
11, 2009. Declaration of J.R. Johnson (“Johnson
Dec.”) ¶ 4. He was sentenced on December 22, 2009,
and resentenced on the same charges on August 16, 2011 to a
term of 2 years, 6 months to 15 years, with 602 days of
credit. Johnson Dec. ¶¶ 5-6.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (“Eastern District”) issued a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum for Petitioner to appear on
unrelated federal charges on April 25, 2012.
Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”)
determined Petitioner would be eligible for parole as of June
21, 2012. Johnson Dec. Attachment 10. As the U.S. Marshals
Service (“Marshals”) had filed a detainer against
Petitioner on April 30, 2012, see Johnson Dec.
Attachment 5 at 1, MDOC sent a letter to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan on
May 7, 2012 indicating the “current decision of the
parole board” was that Petitioner “[h]as a parole
for 6/21/12.” Johnson Dec. Attachment 10.
Marshals picked up Petitioner on May 21, 2012, one month
before he was scheduled to start his state parole.
Petitioner appeared in federal court on May 23, 2012 and
signed an Interstate Agreement on Detainers waiver stating he
wanted to waive his “right to remain in federal
custody” and requested to “be promptly returned
to state custody, prior to the completion of the trial on
[his] federal charges.” Petitioner's Exhibit 9. The
Marshals did not return Petitioner to state custody until
August 27, 2014.
suspended Petitioner's parole on May 22, 2013 because
“[s]ubject has incurred pending charges from U.S.
Marshal Service for stealing mail/check fraud. . . .”
Petitioner's Exhibit 12.
Eastern District sentenced Petitioner on July 16, 2014 to a
60-month term of imprisonment to be served concurrently with
his undischarged state sentence. Johnson Dec. Attachment 7.
Petitioner was also sentenced to 24-months, to be served
consecutively to his other federal sentence, for violating
probation. Johnson Dec. Attachment 8. He was returned to
state custody in Michigan on August 27, 2014 and began his
state parole on November 26, 2014. Johnson Dec. ¶¶
14-15; Johnson Dec. Attachment 14.
Petitioner's return to federal custody in the BOP, BOP
calculated Petitioner's federal sentence as beginning on
the date of sentencing, July 16, 2014, in order to run his
federal sentence concurrently with his state sentence as
ordered by the Eastern District. Johnson Dec. Attachment 1 at
5. Petitioner also received jail credit for the period of
time between October 11 and December 21, 2009. Id.
at 4. The BOP calculated Petitioner's release date to be
July 27, 2019.
After exhausting his administrative remedies, Petitioner
filed this habeas petition arguing he is entitled to credit
on his federal sentence for time spent in custody between
June 21, 2012 and July 16, 2014. He argues the Marshals
mistakenly assumed he had been paroled by the State of
Michigan on June 21, 2012 and thus did not return him to the
MDOC to officially begin his term of parole. As a result, the
period of two years he spent in “primary state
custody” was allegedly “needlessly”
credited towards his state sentence instead of his federal
Petitioner was incarcerated in FCI Fort Dix, New Jersey at
the time he filed this § 2241 petition. Therefore, this
Court had jurisdiction over the petition as the district in
which Petitioner was confined at the time of filing, and it
continues to retain jurisdiction even though Petitioner has
subsequently been transferred to FCI Milan, located in the
Eastern District of Michigan. See Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004) (citing Ex parte
Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944)); see also Gorrell v.
Yost, 509 F.App'x 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013).
Petitioner asserts there are factual questions that may
require an evidentiary hearing. For instance, Petitioner alleges
the Marshals did not promptly return Petitioner to MDOC
custody to begin his state parole because the Marshals were
operating under the mistaken belief Petitioner had already
record provided by the parties could be reasonably read to
provide conflicting evidence. According to the USM-129 Data
sheet, the Marshals listed Petitioner as having been paroled
from MDOC as of June 21, 2012. See Johnson Dec.
Attachment 5 § II. An August 14, 2014 email from
Petitioner's case manager at FDC Milan reads: “I am
getting conflicting information about inmate Detloff. The
Marshals are telling me that he is done with his state time.
. . . When I look him up on the MDOC website it still shows
that he is on writ.” Johnson Dec. Attachment 12 at 4.
An unidentified Marshal wrote on August 19, 2014:
“[Detloff] paroled to our custody.” Id.
at 2-3. In response, the MDOC wrote on August 20: “This