USA v. Farris

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. 4:21-cr-748
)
Plaintiff, ) CHIEF JUDGE SARA LIOI
)
vs. )
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
JOHN LEE FARRIS III, )
)
Defendant. )
Before the Court is a motion by pro se defendant John Lee Farris III (“Farris”) requesting
an order directing the United States Marshals Service to return him to federal custody so that he
can begin serving his federal sentence. (Doc. No. 30 (Motion).) Plaintiff United States of America
(the “government”) filed a response requesting that the Court deny Farris’s motion. (Doc. No. 32
(Response).) Because the motion is premature, and because the Court is without authority to grant
Farris the relief he seeks, the motion is denied.
On February 9, 2022, Farris pled guilty to two counts of distribution of heroin and one
count of distribution of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C). (Minutes of
Proceedings [non-document], 2/9/2022; see Doc. No. 21 (Plea Agreement); Doc. No. 1
(Indictment).) On May 31, 2022, the Court sentenced Farris to a custody term of 24 four months
on each count “to be served concurrently to each other and to be served consecutively to the
undischarged state court sentences in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, [C]ase [N]o. 2019-
[cr]-760, and Trumbull County Common Pleas Court, [C]ase [N]o. 2020-[cr]-800, with credit for
time served to date.” (Doc. No. 26 (Judgment), at 2; Minutes of Proceedings [non-document],
5/31/2022.)
Case: 4:21-cr-00748-SL Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/15/26 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
In his motion, Farris indicates that he is incarcerated at Northeast Ohio Correctional Center
(“NEOCC”), “which is half state [and] half [federal].” (Doc. No. 30, at 1.) He is currently housed
in the section of the facility reserved for individuals serving state sentences. (Id.) By his
calculations, he finished serving his state sentences on July 7, 2026. (Id.) He requests that the Court
issue an order directing the United States Marshals to transfer him to the side of the facility
dedicated to federal prisoners so that he can begin serving his federal sentence. (Id.)
The government opposes Farris’s motion because “the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) does
not take custody of Farris until he completes his state court sentences, at which point he will receive
any credit for federal time served concurrently with state time.” (Doc. No. 32, at 1 (emphasis
added).) According to the government, Farris has completed his state sentence in the Trumbull
County case (No. 2020-cr-800), but he will not complete his state sentence in the Mahoning
County case (No. 2019-cr-760) until March 29, 2027.1 (Id.) Additionally, while serving his
sentence in No. 2019-cr-760, Farris was convicted of trafficking fentanyl, possession of fentanyl,
and illegal conveyance in Lorain County Common Pleas Court (No. 2022-cr-107815), and
sentenced to a four to six year prison term, to run concurrent to his federal and other state court
sentences. (Id. at 2.) The government represents that Farris’s current release date in Lorain Case
No. 2022-cr-107815 is January 29, 2028. (Id.) The Court’s review of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction’s (“ODRC”) website confirms that Farris’s anticipated date of
release from state custody is January 29, 2028.2
1 The government’s response appears to contain a typographical error in the date; the response provides that Farris
will complete his service on Case No. 2019-cr-760 on March 29, 2017, rather than March 29, 2027.
2 (https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A783255, last visited 10/15/2026.)
Case: 4:21-cr-00748-SL Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/15/26 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
Additionally, the government notes:
[T]he BOP [is] aware of when [Farris’s] state court sentences end and will be
permitted to pick him up five business days prior to his release. According to
ODRC, they will work with BOP once Farris’s state sentences are completed by
calculating the concurrent federal time that was served while in ODRC custody.
(Doc. No. 32, at 2.)
Based on the government’s response, and the Court’s independent review, it appears that
Farris’s motion is premature, as he is expected to remain in state custody until January 2028.
Moreover, because Farris is currently in state custody, his motion seeks relief that any federal court
is without authority to provide. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the sovereign that first
arrests an offender has primary jurisdiction over him, and maintains primary jurisdiction even if
the offender is subsequently arrested by another sovereign. See United States v. Collier, 31 F.
App’x 161, 162 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). “[W]hen [as here] a state has primary custodial
jurisdiction over an inmate, a federal court cannot order the delivery of the defendant for service
of a sentence in a federal institution.” Moore v. Schuetzle, 486 F. Supp. 2d 969, 981–82 (D.N.D.
2007) (quoting Fisher v. Goord, 981 F. Supp. 140, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)). Indeed, “[s]uch an order
would be tantamount to a transfer of custody beyond the jurisdiction of the federal court.” Fisher,
981 F. Supp. at 177 (citation omitted).
Once Farris has completed his state sentences, he will be transferred to federal custody, at
which time the BOP will calculate his remaining sentence in the present case, affording him any
credit he is due for federal time served in state custody. BOP has exclusive authority over the
execution of a federal sentence, and it is the prerogative of the BOP to determine whether a prisoner
is entitled to any sentencing credits. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334–37, 112 S. Ct.
1351, 117 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1992); United States v. Wells, 473 F.3d 640, 645 (6th Cir. 2007) (citations
Case: 4:21-cr-00748-SL Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/15/26 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
omitted); United States v. Crozier, 259 F.3d 503, 520 (6th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see 18
U.S.C. § 3585(b). Should Farris take issue with the BOP’s calculation of his remaining federal
sentence, his remedy will be to file a habeas petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the
jurisdiction in which he is confined,3 after proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. McCain
v. Webb, 62 F. App’x 596, 598 (6th Cir. 2003) (“A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the court
having jurisdiction over the prisoner’s custodian is the proper remedy for a prisoner requesting
relief from the execution of a federal sentence.” (citation omitted)); United States v. Singh, 52 F.
App’x 711, 712 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Complete exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite
to seeking review of the BOP’s calculation of sentencing credit.” (citation omitted)); see United
States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001); Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123
(6th Cir. 1998).
For foregoing reasons, Farris’s motion (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 The BOP will also determine where Farris will serve the remainder of his federal sentence. While Farris apparently
would like to serve his federal sentence on the “federal side” of NEOCC—which is located in the judicial district of
the Northern District of Ohio—the exclusive authority to determine a prisoner’s place of incarceration rests with the
BOP, not with the sentencing court. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“The [BOP] shall designate the place of the prisoner’s
imprisonment[.]”). Any habeas petition, therefore, must be filed in the jurisdiction where Farris’s facility is located.
Case: 4:21-cr-00748-SL Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/15/26 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>