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.

Coleman v. Kallis

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

July 2, 2018

HAROLD EDWARD COLEMAN, Petitioner,
v.
STEVEN KALLIS, Warden, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Background

         The pro se[1] petitioner, a federal inmate housed at FCI Hazelton, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. This habeas petition arises out of the calculation by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) of the petitioner's sentence. The petitioner is currently serving a 72-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. ECF No. 14-1 at 1. His federal sentence was to run concurrently with various sentences from the state of Virginia for possession of a controlled substance, driving while intoxicated, and probation violations. ECF No. 14-1 at 2-3.

         In his § 2241 petition, the petitioner alleges that while in state custody he was turned over to federal authorities pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. However, the petitioner alleges that upon completion of the petitioner's federal court proceedings, the United States Marshall Service (“USMS”) failed to return him to state custody. ECF No. 1-1 at 1-2. Further, the petitioner alleges that the BOP failed to designate his federal sentence to be served concurrently to his state sentence. ECF No. 1 at 5-6. For relief, the petitioner requests that this Court order the USMS to return the petitioner to a state facility and for the BOP to designate a state facility for the concurrent service of his federal sentence. ECF No. 1 at 8.

         The respondent, the Warden of FCI Hazelton, filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF No. 14. In the respondent's memorandum in support, the respondent agrees with the petitioner that the petitioner should have been returned to Virginia authorities after his federal court proceedings were completed. ECF No. 14-1 at 6. However, after the petition was filed, the Virginia Department of Corrections was notified of the error and retroactively gave the petitioner credit towards his state sentence for time served in federal prison and removed the detainer the Department of Corrections had lodged against the petitioner. ECF No. 14-1 at 2. Thus, when the petitioner completes his federal sentence, “he will have no outstanding Virginia state sentence to serve.” ECF No 14-1 at 6. Therefore, the respondent argues that the petition is now moot because the petitioner has received the benefit of a concurrent service of his state and federal sentences. ECF No. 14-1 at 10-11.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation 2, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert. The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation. ECF No. 20. In that recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that the respondent's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment be granted and the petitioner's § 2241 petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 20 at 8. The magistrate judge agreed with the respondent that because the Virginia Department of Corrections has already given the petitioner credit toward his state sentence for time in federal custody, there is no longer any need for the BOP to designate a state facility for the service of the petitioner's federal sentence. ECF No. 20 at 6-7. Accordingly, the magistrate judge found that the petition should be denied and dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 20 at 8.

         The magistrate judge advised the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), any party may file written objections to his proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy of the report and recommendation. Neither party filed any objections to the report and recommendation.

         For the reasons that follow, this Court finds that the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge should be adopted in its entirety.

         III. Applicable Law

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's recommendation to which objection is timely made. Because the petitioner did not file any objections to the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations will be upheld unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

         IV. Discussion

         After reviewing the parties' filings and the record, this Court is not “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” by the magistrate judge. United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. at 395. The magistrate judge correctly held the pro se petition to less stringent standards than those complaints drafted by attorneys. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Upon review, the magistrate judge concluded that because the Virginia Department of Corrections has now credited the petitioner for time in federal custody, the intent of the sentencing court has been accomplished. ECF No. 20 at 6-7. The magistrate judge correctly found that the petitioner has now received all due credit for prior custody and that he will have no outstanding Virginia state sentence once released from BOP custody. ECF No. 20 at 7-8.

         Therefore, this Court finds that the findings of the magistrate judge are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the report and ...


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.