Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hill v. Hendrix

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Elkins

April 27, 2018

ANTOINE HILL, Petitioner,
v.
DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

          JOHN PRESTON BAILEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of pro se petitioner Antoine Hill's Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1]. On October 15, 2017, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18]. This matter has been briefed and is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, this Court will grant the respondent's Motion and dismiss the petition.

         II. Factual and Procedural History

         On October 7, 2008, petitioner was sentenced in the Eastern District of Virginia to a one hundred thirty-seven (137) month term of imprisonment for heroin trafficking and firearms offenses in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (No. 3:07-cr-407). The BOP's website indicates petitioner's projected release date is June 23, 2018. Petitioner was originally designated to FCI Morgantown, but was recently transferred to FCI Butner.

         On April 27, 2017, the petitioner, then an inmate at FCI Morgantown, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking an order directing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to transfer him to a halfway house or Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) for the last twelve (12) months of his term of imprisonment [Doc. 1]. On May 1, 2017, petitioner paid the required $5.00 filing fee [Doc. 4]. On August 16, 2017, this Court conducted a preliminary review of the petition and found that summary dismissal of the same was not warranted [Doc. 12]. Therefore, this Court ordered the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted. In response, the respondent filed its Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18]. Subsequently, this Court issued a Roseboro Notice [Doc. 20] informing the petitioner of his right and obligation to file a response.

         III. Standards of Review

         a. Rule 56 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); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-25; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249 (citations omitted).

         b. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

         In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a district court must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Zak v. Chelsea, 780 F.3d 597, 601 (4th Cir. 2015)(citing Matrix Capital Mgmt. Fund, LP v. Bearing Point, Inc., 576 F.3d 172, 176 (4th Cir. 2009)). While a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, 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. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Indeed, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).

         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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007) (emphasis added).” Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. However, when reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court may also consider “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). A court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss when they are “integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and . . . the plaintiffs do not challenge [their] authenticity.” Am. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Trigon Healthcare, Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004).

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.