Rich v. Moore

• Decision Date: 13 September 2018
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. GLR-17-2196
• Parties: DANA CARLTON RICH, #430-252, Plaintiff, v. KENYA MOORE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

DANA CARLTON RICH, #430-252, Plaintiff, v. KENYA MOORE, Defendant.

Civil Action No. GLR-17-2196

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

September 13, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on DefendantKenya Moore's Motion to Dismiss(ECF No. 14) and PlaintiffDana Carlton Rich's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus(ECF No. 15).The Motions are ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary.See Local Rule 105.6(D.Md. 2016).For the reasons outlined below, the Court will grant Rich's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which it construes as a Supplement to the habeas claims contained in this hybrid Complaint, and will grant in part and deny without prejudice in part Moore's Motion.

I.BACKGROUND¹

Rich is incarcerated at the Maryland Correctional Training Center in Hagerstown, Maryland.(Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1).²On August 19, 2014, Rich pleaded guilty to armed robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in the CircuitCourt for Baltimore County, Maryland.(Compl. Ex. A at 1, ECF No. 1-1;Id.Ex. B at 1, ECF No. 1-2);see alsoState v. Rich, CaseNo. 03-K-14-000967(Cir.Ct.Balt.Cty.).The Court sentenced Rich to two concurrent twenty-year sentences, with all but five years suspended.(Compl. Ex. F at 1-2, ECF No. 1-6; Compl. at 3).Rich's commitment order, dated August 19, 2014, indicates that he was eligible for parole.(Compl. Ex. Fat 2).Rich also earned good conduct or diminution credits in prison and, accounting for these credits, his release date was June 9, 2017.(Compl. Ex. G, ECF No. 1-7).

Rich alleges that, applying his earned diminution credits, he was scheduled for mandatory supervision release in May 2017.³(Compl. at 2;Id.Ex. B ¶ 2).In anticipation of his release, Rich was placed on home detention on April 11, 2017.(Compl. Ex. G; Compl. at 3).

On April 12, 2017, Rich was removed from home detention and the Division of Correction("DOC") notified him in writing that he was ineligible for mandatory supervision release based on his conviction for use of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.The notice states, in relevant part:

You are not eligible for release on mandatory supervision because you are not eligible for parole on your sentence for aviolent crime.Diminution of confinement credits cannot be applied to reduce the length of your incarceration.Upon reaching the maximum expiration date, you will be released by expiration of sentence.

(Compl. Ex. A).

The notice explained that Rich's firearms conviction was a violent crime as defined in Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 7-101(m), and the crime occurred after October 1, 2009, thereby making him ineligible for parole and mandatory release during his confinement under Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 7-501(b).⁴(Compl. Ex. A).Rich states that he was informed that he must serve his five-year term "day for day" without the benefit of diminution credits.(Compl. at 3;Id.Ex.A).Rich asserts that he is entitled to the benefit of the diminution credits that he earned.(Compl. at 3;Id.Ex. G).He pleads that he was "stripped of all his day[s]," and his right to due process was violated.(Compl. at 3;Id.Ex. Gat 1-2).Rich's superseding commitment record, dated October 12, 2017, shows that he must serve the first five years of his sentence without consideration for or release on parole.(Def.'s Mot. Dismiss ["Def.'s Mot."] Ex. B at 9-10, ECFNo. 14-3).⁵

On August 3, 2017, Rich, who is self-represented, filed his Complaint, bringing a hybrid civil rights and habeas action.(ECF No. 1).In his Complaint, Rich challengesthe calculation of his term of confinement, requests $100,000 damages for "unjust incarceration," and seeks immediate release from imprisonment.(Compl. at 4-6).

On December 18, 2017, Moore, a Commitment Records Specialist Supervisor for the DOC, filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).(ECF No. 14).Rich filed an Opposition on February 12, 2018.(ECF No. 16).To date, the Court has no record that Moore filed a Reply.On December 27, 2017, before filing his Opposition, Rich filed a "Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus" seeking a hearing on his allegedly improper confinement.⁶(ECF No. 15).Rich's Motion is unopposed.

II.DISCUSSION

A.Standard of Review

"The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of a complaint," not to "resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses."King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214(4th Cir.2016)(quotingEdwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243-44(4th Cir.1999)).A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,"Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), or does not "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,"Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678(2009)(quotingBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570(2007)).A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference thatthe defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."Id.(citingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 556)."Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."Id.(citingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 555).Though the plaintiff is not required to forecast evidence to prove the elements of the claim, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to establish each element.Goss v. Bank of Am., N.A., 917 F.Supp.2d 445, 449(D.Md.2013)(quotingWalters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439(4th Cir.2012)), aff'd sub nom., Goss v. Bank of Am., NA, 546 F.App'x 165(4th Cir.2013).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent they are not inconsistent with statutory provisions or the Rules Governing Section 2254Cases in the United States District Courts, apply to § 2254 proceedings.SeeRule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2254Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. §2254.Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254Cases states that a court may apply these rules to habeas corpus petitions filed under provisions other than § 2254.

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers.Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94(2007)(quotingEstelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 106(1976)).Nonetheless, "[w]hile pro se complaints may 'represent the work of an untutored hand requiring special judicial solicitude,'a district court is not required to recognize 'obscure or extravagant claims defying the most concerted efforts to unravel them.'"Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. for Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 391(4th Cir.1990)(quotingBeaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277(4th Cir.1985)).Further, "[t]he Court cannot act as a pro se litigant's 'advocate and develop,sua sponte, statutory and constitutional claims' that the litigant failed to raise on the face of the complaint."Branch v. Machen, No. 3:14CV708, 2014 WL 6685497, at *2(E.D.Va.Nov. 25, 2014)(quotingNewkirk v. Circuit Court of Hampton, No. 3:14cv372-HEH, 2014 WL 4072212, at *1(E.D.Va.Aug. 14, 2014)).

The general rule is that a court may not consider extrinsic evidence when resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.SeeChesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC, 794 F.Supp.2d 602, 611(D.Md.2011).But this general rule is subject to several exceptions.One of these exceptions is that a court may consider documents attached to the complaint, seeFed.R.Civ.P. 10(c), as well as those attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic, seeBlankenship v. Manchin, 471 F.3d 523, 526 n.1(4th Cir.2006).

Here, Rich attached to his Complaint copies of the DOC letter concerning his ineligibility for mandatory release, his commitment record, and his diminution credit record.(Compl. Exs. A, F, G).With her Motion, Moore filed a copy of Rich's superseding commitment record.(Def.'s Mot. Ex. B).Because Rich attached the documents to his Complaint and the superseding commitment record is attached to Moore's Motion, integral to the Complaint, and authentic, the Court will consider these documents.

B.Analysis

Defendant moves for dismissal on two principal grounds.First, Moore asserts that a judgment in Rich's favor in this case would call into question the validity of his confinement, and, therefore, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477(1994), bars this suit.Second, Moore asserts that Rich failed to exhaust his state remedies in regard to his request for habeas corpus relief.Although the Court does not construe Rich's Complaint as challenging the validity of his confinement, the Court will nevertheless dismiss the Complaint and conclude that Rich failed to exhaust his state remedies.

In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held that "in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal" or otherwise invalidated.512 U.S. at 486-87.Some claims, however, do not necessarily imply the validity of a conviction or sentence, and therefore Heck does not bar them.Marcantoni v. Bealefeld, 734 F.App'x 198, 199(4th Cir.2018)(citingHeck, 512 U.S. at 487, 487 n.7)(noting that Heck did not bar the plaintiff's § 1983 suit for damages for an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, even though evidence from the search was introduced at a criminal trial that resulted in the plaintiff's still-outstanding conviction).

In this case, Rich does not challenge the validity of his underlying convictions or sentences.Rather, he maintains that he was denied due process when he was "stripped" of the diminution credits he had earned to secure his early release from...