Duncan v. Vantell

• Decision Date: 02 November 2021
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-01106-STA-jay
• Parties: JAMES DAVID DUNCAN, Petitioner, v. VINCENT VANTELL Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

JAMES DAVID DUNCAN, Petitioner,
v.
VINCENT VANTELL Respondent.

No. 1:21-cv-01106-STA-jay

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division

November 2, 2021

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S PENDING MOTIONS, DISMISSING § 2241 PETITION, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

S. THOMAS ANDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner James David Duncan, a Tennessee state prisoner, has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition (the Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 2.) The Petition is before the Court for preliminary review. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the following reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED.^[1]

Petitioner is currently serving an unspecified sentence for an unspecified crime. He originally presented two grounds for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and he filed his pleading in the Eastern District of Tennessee. The claims challenged his security

1

classification and his state sentence. On July 20, 2021, the Honorable Travis R. McDonough dismissed the sentencing claim. (ECF No. 5.) Regarding the security-classification claim, he found that “to the extent this claim is cognizable, it falls under § 2241, and the Court must therefore transfer it to the district that has jurisdiction over Petitioner's custodian.” (Id. at 2 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004)).) The claim was transferred to this district on the same day.

In the sole remaining claim, Petitioner asserts that the Tennessee Department of Correction (the “TDOC”) is using incorrect information about his prior convictions to place him in a high security classification. He alleges that the result of the assigned classification is that he cannot take advantage of opportunities he otherwise would have had to accrue “work and behavior credits.” (ECF No. 2 at 2.) He maintains that the TDOC has violated his right to due process because these lost opportunities “ultimately affect[] his liberty interests”-presumably because the credits, if earned, would shorten the amount of time he would be incarcerated. (Id.) He asks the Court to “correct[]” his prison record and the “withheld work and behavior credits, ” and “re-class [him] to the correct security level.”^[2] (Id.)

Petitioner also alleges that he has “exhausted all available remedies” in an attempt to resolve the issue before proceeding in federal court. (Id. at 1.) In support, he attached as part of the Petition the following documents: an October 2020 “Inmate Inquiry” form that he submitted to an unspecified prison staff member asking, “Can you please correct the information that is false

2

on T.D.O.C. data-base, ” (id. at 11), a February 2021 letter from his attorney to the warden raising the issue of his alleged improper security classification and false information, (id. at 4), documents showing his prior offenses, (id. at 6-10), Duncan's April 2021 letter asking for his TDOC record to be corrected by the person who, he was told, “is the authorit[y] that enters information to the data-base for T.D.O.C., ” (id. at 12), and a letter dated May 2021, from the “Detainer Administrator, ” responding to Duncan's “petition for declaratory order, ” (id. at 13).^[3] In the May letter, the Detainer Administrator informed Petitioner that he failed to “file[] an appeal” of the classification decision, as required by “TDOC policy # 401.08[.]” (Id. at 13). He also advised Duncan as to his next step: “[Y]ou will need to address your classification issue with this Department's Classification Director, who can more readily address your classification issue.” (Id.)

Under § 2241, a writ of habeas corpus is available to a prisoner “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A state prisoner “may use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the execution of a sentence, the manner in which the sentence is being served, or claims generally pertaining to the computation of parole or sentencing credits.” Murphy v. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:19-CV-00487, 2019 WL 4167343, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 3, 2019) (citing Ali v. Tenn. Bd. of Pardon and Paroles, 431 F.3d 896, 896 (6th Cir. 2005); Greene v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 265 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir. 2001)). But see Allen v. White, 185 Fed.Appx. 487, 490 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that “there exists some question whether state prisoners may ever proceed under § 2241”). A state prisoner bringing a habeas claim under § 2241 must first exhaust his state remedies. Collins v. Million, 121 Fed.Appx. 628, 630-31 (6th Cir. 2005).

3

The petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating exhaustion. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

The documents that Duncan himself has submitted do not demonstrate that he has exhausted his state remedies. The May 28, 2021 letter he received from the Detainer Administrator noted that he had not appealed his security classification through available channels.^[4] Petitioner does not dispute that statement. And, although the Detainer Administrator advised him that he “will need to address [his] classification issue with this Department's Classification Director, who can more readily address [his] classification issue, ” (ECF No. 2 at 13), Duncan has failed to document or specifically allege that he took that step. Indeed, it is unlikely that had exhausted that avenue by the time he filed the Petition, which he submitted only six weeks after receiving the May letter. And although he mailed a letter to the Court on October 30, 2021, inquiring as to the status of the case (ECF Nos. 13 & 13-1), he does not indicate in that correspondence that he has taken, or is currently taking, any action through the classification appeals process or has otherwise...