Smith v. Gunther

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 25, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01851
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 wo 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jacob P. Smith, No. CV-24-01851-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Jason Gunther, 13 Respondent.

14 15 Petitioner Jacob P. Smith, who is confined in the Federal Correctional Institution- 16 Phoenix, filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 17 Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) and paid the filing fee. Petitioner has also filed a 18 Motion for an Order Requiring Service (Doc. 8). The Court will dismiss the Petition and 19 this case and deny the Motion as moot. 20 I. Petition 21 In his Petition, Petitioner names Jason Gunther as Respondent. Petitioner 22 challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP’s) calculation of his earned time credits 23 under the First Step Act. 24 II. Discussion 25 Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho 26 of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to a 77-month 27 term of imprisonment, followed by 5 years on supervised release. United States v. Smith, 28 4:19-cr-00304-DCN-2 (D. Idaho 2019). 1 On July 19, 2024, Petitioner filed a § 2241 Petition in this Court, in which he asserts that the BOP has refused to credit him with 586 days of jail credit that the sentencing judge 3| awarded. Smith v. Gunther, CV-24-01790-PHX-JAT (MTM). Because Petitioner already 4| has a habeas corpus proceeding pending regarding the calculation of his sentence with 5 | respect to his Idaho conviction, the Court will dismiss this case as duplicative. If Petitioner 6 | wishes to assert additional grounds regarding the calculation of his sentence, he must do 7 | so in an amended petition in CV-24-01790. 8) ITIS ORDERED: 9 (1) Petitioner’s Motion for an Order Requiring Service (Doc. 8) is denied as 10) moot. 11 (2) Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and this case are 12 | dismissed as duplicative of Smith v. Gunther, CV-24-01790-PHX-JAT (MTM). 13 (3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 14 (4) Although Petitioner has brought his claims in a § 2241 petition, a certificate 15 | of appealability is required where a § 2241 petition attacks the petitioner’s conviction or sentence. See Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th. Cir. 2001). Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, 18 | the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would 19 | not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 21 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2024. 22 23 A 7 5 24 5 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 26 27 28 -2-