Coppola v. United States

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 JOSEPH R. COPPOLA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00513-RFB-NJK 6 Petitioner, 7 v. ORDER

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 9 Respondent. 10 11 12 Petitioner Joseph R. Coppola, a prisoner in federal custody, has filed a petition for writ of 13 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1-1. His petition relates to a 2005 judgment of 14 conviction on two counts of bank robbery in case number CR-S-03-010-LRH(PAL), a case in this 15 district court. The Court has reviewed the petition and finds that it is defective in at least three 16 respects, which are discussed below. Thus, the Court will require Coppola to file an amended 17 petition correcting the defects, if possible, before the Court decides whether to require a response 18 from the government. 19 In his petition, Coppola seeks relief on two grounds. First, he alleges that he is being held 20 in the Nevada Southern Detention Center in violation of the laws of the United States. He contends 21 that his sentence is governed by the 2002 version of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), which caps his period 22 of “re-imprisonment” while on supervised release at two years. According to Coppola, his current 23 incarceration exceeds two years. Coppola’s challenge to the computation of his sentence is 24 correctly brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Hernandez 25 v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Generally, motions to contest the legality of a 26 sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the 27 1 manner, location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in 2 the custodial court); see also United States v. Espinoza, 866 F.2d 1067, 1071 (9th Cir. 1988) (an 3 alleged error in a sentence credit calculation challenges the Attorney General’s execution of a 4 sentence, not the district court’s imposition of that sentence). 5 It is less clear, however, whether Coppola’s second ground for relief is properly brought in 6 a § 2241 petition. Coppola alleges that his rights were violated when the sentencing court imposed 7 a SORNA1 special condition the last two times it revoked his supervised release. Based on 8 Coppola’s vague allegations, this Court is not inclined to conclude that a § 2241 petition is 9 available as an avenue for relief with respect to this claim. See, e.g., United States v. Gross, 307 10 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th Cir. 2002) (a challenge to the legality of a term or condition of supervised 11 release is limited to direct appeal, a § 2255 motion, or a timely Rule 35(c) motion); see also 12 Prentice v. Bureau of Prisons, 2015 WL 4928953, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2015) (explaining that 13 claims challenging the petitioner’s supervised release conditions do not fall within the purview of 14 Section 2241). With additional allegations as to the specific circumstances underlying the 15 imposition of the special condition, Coppola may be able to demonstrate he is challenging the 16 execution rather than the legality of his sentence. In its current form, however, his second ground 17 for relief is subject to dismissal. 18 More importantly, there are additional defects with Coppola’s § 2241 petition that warrant 19 dismissal if not corrected. First, the petition does not name the proper respondent. A habeas petition 20 must be directed at the person having custody over the prisoner, and the immediate custodian is 21 generally the warden of the facility where the petitioner is confined. See Brittingham v. United 22 States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). Coppola contends that he is being held at the Nevada 23 Southern Detention Center where Christopher Chestnut is the warden. Instead of naming 24 Christopher Chestnut as a respondent in this action, Coppola incorrectly names the United States 25 of America. 26

27 1 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. 1 Second, “[f]ederal prisoners are required to exhaust their federal administrative remedies 2 || prior to bringing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court.” Martinez v. Roberts, 804 3 || 570,571 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012); Laing 4 || v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2004). “After a district court sentences a federal 5 || offender, the Attorney General, through the [Bureau of Prisons], has the responsibility for 6 || administering the sentence.” United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992). Thus, questions 7 || concerning the execution of a sentence should be presented to the Bureau of Prisons in the first 8 || instance, and only after exhausting his administrative remedies may a petitioner seek review of the 9 || Bureau of Prison’s decision under § 2241. See id. It does not appear that Coppola has exhausted 10 |) his administrative remedies. Thus, his amended petition must contain either information 11 || demonstrating exhaustion or an explanation why exhaustion should be excused. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the petition for writ of habeas 13 || corpus (ECF No. 1-1). The Clerk shall refrain from serving the respondents at this time, pending 14 || the amendment of the petition. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Coppola shall have 30 days from the date this order is 16 || entered on the docket within which to file an amended petition that corrects the deficiencies 17 || identified in this order.? If Coppola fails to respond to this order in the time allotted, the Court 18 || shall conclude that he has decided not to pursue this matter, and shall enter an order dismissing 19 || this case, without prejudice. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send the petitioner a Section 2241 21 || habeas petition form, a copy of the instructions for the form, and a copy of his initial habeas 22 || petition. 23 April 28, 2023.

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 || 2 This order does not explicitly or implicitly hold that the petition otherwise is free of deficiencies. 28