McKnight v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 02 February 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. JKB-14-2042
• Parties: RICCARDO McKNIGHT, Petitioner v. WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART Respondent
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

RICCARDO McKNIGHT, Petitioner
v.
WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART Respondent

Civil Action No. JKB-14-2042

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

February 2, 2015

MEMORANDUM

This court required respondents to file a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 3. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, motion for summary judgment and response to the habeas petition. ECF No. 7. Petitioner was notified of his opportunity to file a reply and has done so. ECF No. 8. The parties then filed additional responses, replies, and surreplies. ECF Nos. 9-12. The court finds a hearing in this matter unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons that follow, the court will DISMISS the petition for writ of habeas corpus and DENY a certificate of appealability.

Background

Petitioner maintains that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has improperly calculated his sentence. ECF No. 1. He maintains that his federal sentence was to run concurrently with his state sentence and he is being held past his release date. Id.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this action are not materially in dispute. On November 23, 2009, petitioner was arrested in Warren County, New Jersey, for fraudulent use of a credit card, conspiracy, and theft by deception. At that time, he had other cases pending in Somerset County and Bergen County, New Jersey. ECF No. 7, Attachments 1-4. While detained in state custody, on January 27, 2010, petitioner was "borrowed" to federal custody pursuant to a federally issued Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum. Id., Attachment 5.

Page 2

On April 7, 2010, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, petitioner was sentenced to a 60-month term of incarceration and ordered to pay restitution. Id., Attachment 6. Thereafter, petitioner was returned to state custody with the federal judgment lodged as a detainer against him. Id. Ex. 5.

On April 8, 2011, petitioner was sentenced to a five-year term of confinement by the Somerset County Superior Court. He received 507 days of custody credit. Id., Attachments 1, 3, and 7. On September 23, 2011, he was sentenced to a five-year term of confinement in Bergen County, New Jersey. Id., Attachments 1 & 4. On November 10, 2011, petitioner received a five-year term of confinement in Warren County, New Jersey. Id., Attachments 1 & 2.

On March 17, 2014, petitioner was released from the New Jersey Department of Corrections to the United States Marshal's Service detainer. Id., Attachments 5 & 8. Petitioner should have been released from state custody to the federal detainer on August 31, 2013, his maximum release date. The time he remained in state custody after his maximum release date, from September 1, 2013 to March 16, 2014, was credited to petitioner's federal sentence. Id, Attachment 10.

On May 9, 2014, petitioner's Warren County, New Jersey, case was vacated. The state judge indicated he intended to have petitioner's federal sentence served first and, as that did not occur, the state sentence was vacated "to apply all time credits toward defendant's yet unsatisfied federal sentence." Id., Attachment 9.

Upon entering federal custody, the BOP prepared a sentence computation based on petitioner's 60-month sentence, commencing on March 17, 2014, the date petitioner was received into federal custody. He was awarded jail credit from January 30-February 20, 2008; April 29-May 5, 2008; and September 1, 2013-March 15, 2014, as these periods of incarceration

Page 3

had not been awarded by the state. Petitioner is scheduled to be released via good conduct time on December 10, 2017. Id., Attachment 10.

On June 23, 2014, petitioner filed an administrative remedy regarding the calculation of his federal sentence. Id., Attachment 16. The request was denied on July 13, 2014. Petitioner filed a timely appeal to the Regional Office, which was denied. Id. At the time the response to this petition was filed, petitioner's time for filing an appeal to the central office remained pending. Id.

Standard of Review

A. Motion to Dismiss

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). The dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted does not require defendant to establish "beyond doubt" that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561-62 (2007). Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Id. at 562. The court need not, however, accept unsupported legal allegations, see Revene v. Charles County Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986), or conclusional factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events, see United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979).

In reviewing the complaint in light of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construes the facts and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in...