Opinion
Civil Action 5:22-CV-301
03-06-2023
GERALD TYRONE KING, Petitioner, v. WARDEN ROANE, Respondent.
Bailey, Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JAMES P. MAZZONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 7, 2022, the pro se petitioner, Gerald Tyrone King (“petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1]. On January 5, 2023, petitioner paid the $5 filing fee. [Doc. 10]. Petitioner is a federal inmate who is housed at FCI Gilmer in Glenville, West Virginia, and is challenging the calculation of his sentence and application of time credits. On February 8, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19]. On February 21, 2023, petitioner filed a response [Doc. 23]. This matter is pending before the undersigned for an initial review and Report and Recommendation pursuant to LR PL P 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment be granted and the petition be denied and dismissed without prejudice.
The information in this section is taken from the petitioner's criminal docket available on PACER. See United States v. King, 5:17-CR-91-1 (S.D. W.Va. 2017). Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (courts “may properly take judicial notice of public record); Colonial Penn. Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 21239 (4th Cir. 1989) (“We note that ‘the most frequent use of judicial notice is in noticing the contents of court records.'”).
A. Conviction and Sentence
On May 23, 2017, petitioner was charged in a seven-count indictment in the Southern District of West Virginia. On July 11, 2017, petitioner pleaded guilty to one of the counts, distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On October 18, 2017, petitioner was sentenced to a term of twenty-one months imprisonment.
On August 18, 2022, petitioner's supervised release was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of fifteen months imprisonment. According to the Bureau of Prison's (“BOP”) website, petitioner's projected release date, via good conduct time, is July 5, 2023.
B. The Instant Petition for Habeas Corpus Under § 2241
In his petition, petitioner alleges that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has refused to grant him time credits as provided by the First Step Act and CARES Act. Construing the petition broadly, petitioner appears to be referring to time credits set forth in the First Step Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4). For relief, he asks the Court to order the BOP to award him time credits.
On February 8, 2023, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. In respondent's memorandum in support of the Motion, respondent argues, first, that petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing his petition. Second, respondent argues that petitioner is not eligible for time credits to be applied because his most recent risk assessment classified him as high-risk recidivism level.
In his response to the Motion, petitioner contends that he exhausted available remedies when he received a verbal response from his unit team. He does not address respondent's contention that he is ineligible from time credits to be applied due to his risk assessment.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
A complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege “‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007) (emphasis added).” Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). When reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must assume all of the allegations to be true, must resolve all doubts and inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, and must view the allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243-44 (4th Cir. 1999).
When rendering its decision, the Court should consider only the allegations contained in the Complaint, the exhibits to the Complaint, matters of public record, and other similar materials that are subject to judicial notice. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, 63 F.3d 1305, 1312 (4th Cir. 1995). In Twombly, the Supreme Court, noting that “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,” Id. at 555, upheld the dismissal of a complaint where the plaintiffs did not “nudge[ ] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Id. at 570.
This Court is well aware that “[m]atters outside of the pleadings are generally not considered in ruling on a Rule 12 Motion.” Williams v. Branker, 462 Fed.Appx. 348, 352 (4th Cir. 2012). “Ordinarily, a court may not consider any documents that are outside of the Complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein, unless the motion is converted into one for summary judgment.” Witthohn v. Fed. Ins. Co., 164 Fed.Appx. 395, 396 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence if the documents are central to a plaintiff's claim or are sufficiently referred to in the Complaint. Id. at 396-97.
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A genuine issue exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus, the Court must conduct “the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial - whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.
Additionally, the party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). That is, once the movant has met its burden to show absence of material fact, the party opposing summary judgment must then come forward with affidavits or other evidence demonstrating there is indeed a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); CelotexCorp., 477 U.S. at 32325; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (citations omitted).
Finally, this Court notes that pro se allegations are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers and must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Hudspeth v. Figgins, 584 F.2d 1345, 1347 (4th Cir. 1978).
IV. ANALYSIS
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or any other federal law, must first exhaust all available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “Federal prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing § 2241 petitions. Failure to exhaust may only be excused upon a showing of cause and prejudice.” McClung v. Shearin, 90 Fed.Appx. 444, 445 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 634-35 (2d Cir.2001), Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 953-54 (6th Cir.1981)). Exhaustion as provided in § 1997e(a) is mandatory, regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Because exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit, all available administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a complaint in federal court. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 741). “Those remedies need not meet federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.'” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524.
Pursuant to McClung, failure to exhaust may only be excused upon a showing of cause and prejudice. As recognized in Carmona, supra, which was cited by the Fourth Circuit in its opinion in McClung:
[T]he interests of judicial economy and accuracy are served by requiring that, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, appeals proceed in the first instance through the federal agency review process. Following the administrative procedures could potentially obviate the need for judicial review, or at a minimum, develop the factual record at the agency level at a time when the disputed events are still relatively fresh in witnesses' minds. In this sense, it is the analogue of the exhaustion of state remedies requirement for a state prisoner seeking federal habeas review, and the results governing failure to take this path should be the same.
Administrative autonomy is also served by requiring that a federal prisoner justify his failure to exhaust his intra-Bureau remedies. When, however, legitimate circumstances beyond the prisoner's control preclude him from fully pursuing his administrative remedies, the standard we adopt excuses this failure to exhaust.Carmona, 243 F.3d at 634 (internal citations omitted).
The Bureau of Prisons provides a four-step administrative process beginning with attempted informal resolution with prison staff (BP-8). See 28 C.F.R. § 542.10, et seq. If the prisoner achieves no satisfaction informally, he must file a written complaint to the warden (BP-9), within 20 calendar days of the date of the occurrence on which the complaint is based. If an inmate is not satisfied with the warden's response, he may appeal to the regional director of the BOP (BP-10) within 20 days of the warden's response. Finally, if the prisoner has received no satisfaction, he may appeal to the Office of General Counsel (BP-11) within 30 days of the date the Regional Director signed the response. An inmate is not deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies until he has filed his complaint at all levels. 28 C.F.R.§ 542.10-542.15; Gibbs v. Bureau of Prison Office, FCI, 986 F.Supp. 941, 943 (D.Md. 1997).
Here, it is undisputed that petitioner did not proceed through the four-step process provided by the Bureau of Prisons. Instead, he contends that he has exhausted because he “was given a verbal response from the Unit Team Counselor and was told to file. To file First Step/Cares Act in order to receive relief for Covid 19 epidemic.” [Doc. 23 at 2]. As outlined above, upon receiving a denial at the informal resolution level, petitioner was required to next file a written complaint to the warden. Because petitioner did not do so, he has not exhausted his remedies, and the case should be dismissed to allow petitioner the opportunity to pursue administrative remedies.
In the alternative, even if petitioner could show that administrative remedies were unavailable, he is unable to show that he is entitled to relief. The First Step Act initiated a system that allows eligible prisoners to earn time credits for successfully completing “evidence-based recidivism programming.” Specifically, a prisoner will earn 10 days of time credits for every 30 days of successful participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(i). In addition, a prisoner, who is determined to be a minimum or low risk of recidivating, will earn an additional 5 days of time credits for every 30 days of successful participation if he has not increased his risk of recidivism over two consecutive assessments. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(ii). However, to have time credits applied to his sentence, an inmate must have “shown through the periodic risk reassessments a demonstrated recidivism risk reduction or has maintained a minimum or low recidivism risk, during the prisoner's term of imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624; see also 28 C.F.R. § 523.44(b), (c).
Here, petitioner's most recent risk assessment assigned him a medium risk recidivism level. Accordingly, although petitioner is able to earn time credits, the BOP is not able to apply them at this time.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19] be GRANTED and that the petition [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The petitioner shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the United States District Judge. Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page limitation, consistent with LR PL P 12.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984).
This Report and Recommendation completes the referral from the district court. The Clerk is directed to terminate the Magistrate Judge's association with this case.
The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.