Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 03-1578
February 18, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently before this Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ("Respondent") has filed a Response to the petition. John Hooks ("Petitioner") currently is serving a state sentence at the Philadelphia Detention Center, 8301 State Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Petitioner challenges his confinement on grounds that he has served all of his sentences in full and is, hence, being detained in violation of his constitutional rights. See Petitioner's Federal Habeas Petition ("Pet.") at "COVER PAGE." The Honorable William H. Yohn referred this matter to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For reasons that follow, Petitioner's Motion To Withdraw this petition should be granted and his Petition should be withdrawn as moot.
Petitioner alleges that, on May 4, 2000 he completed a violation of probation sentence that had been imposed by Judge A. Snite, Jr. See Petition ("Pet.") at 1-2. Thereafter, his status was that of a pretrial detainee while attempting to pay bail on consolidated bill Nos. 9904-0927 (two counts of simple assault on a correctional officer) and 9908-0969 (one count of simple assault on a prison-correctional officer). Id. After being confined from May 5 through July 13, 2000, Petitioner was released on bail. However, Petitioner's bail was revoked and he was re-incarcerated from November 22, 2000 to May 19, 2002, while awaiting trial on the new charges. See Pet. 2. A negotiated plea was entered on two consolidated bills and, on or about May 23, 2002, Petitioner was sentenced to serve 11.5 to 23 months, with two years of probation to follow on bill No. 9904-0927 and a consecutive term of one year of probation on bill No. 9908-0969. See Pet. 1. Petitioner presently seeks, as a credit towards this sentence, the full twenty (20) months he was incarcerated while waiting to post bail. See Pet. [2].
On February 4, 2004, Respondent filed a Motion for Expansion of Time Nunc Pro Tunc to File response and Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See Document ("Doc.") No. 15. By Order dated February 11, 2004, this Court Granted Respondent the requested enlargement of time to respond. See Doc. No. 18. The Responses states, inter alia, that Petitioner's claims are unexhausted and, therefore, inappropriate for habeas corpus review. See Response ("Resp.") at 8, 10.
Meanwhile, on February 6, 2004, Petitioner filed "Plaintiff[s] Response to Defendants . . . [And] Motion To Withdraw This Action." See Doc. No. 17. Petitioner, in his Motion to Withdraw concedes that, based upon his review of documents attached to the Response, his time spent in pre-trial detention, now, has been appropriately credited. See Resp., Exhibit A at 1-8. He wrote:
I am satisfied with the responce [sic] they gave, of February 4th 2004 supplying me and the courts with verifying documents, that they did rectifie [sic] the abuse of discretion and rightfuly[sic] credited me the time I was owed that they did not have done before July 2003.See Doc. No. 17. Thus, Petitioner quite appropriately, requests permission to withdraw this petition, and in "the interest of justice,"this court should grant his request. See Motion To Withdraw. Accordingly, I make the following:
RECOMMENDATION
AND NOW, this day of February, 2004, for the reasons contained in the preceding report, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation be APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw his Petition for Habeas Corpus be GRANTED;
3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be WITHDRAWN AS MOOT; and
4. Petitioner has failed to make a showing of a denial of a constitutional right, in that he admits that the problem has been rectified. Thus, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.