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.

Boyd v. Smith

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

January 16, 2018

DARNELL BOYD, Petitioner,
v.
THOMAS SMITH, Respondent.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. DEVER III, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On July 18, 2016, Darnell Boyd ("Boyd" or "petitioner"), a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [D.E. 1], a supporting memorandum [D.E. 1-1], several exhibits [D.E. 1-2], andamotionto expedite [D.E. 2]. Boydseeks credit againsthis sentence for a period of time spent in pretrial detention. See Mem. Supp.Pet. [D.E. 1-1] 2-3. On February 8, 2017, the court reviewed the petition and additional filings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, allowed it to proceed, and denied the motion to expedite as moot [D.E. 9].

         On March 28, 2017, respondent moved to dismiss Boyd's complaint [D.E. 14] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 15]. On April 20, 2017, Boyd responded in opposition [D.E. 21-22], and filed additional exhibits [D.E. 22-1]. On August 31, 2017, the court informed the parties that it intended to construe respondent's motion as one seeking summary judgment, and directed the parties to supplement their filings with additional briefing and exhibits [D.E. 25].

         On October 12, 2017, respondent moved for summary judgment [D.E. 30], and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 31], the declaration of Dawn L. Giddings ("Giddings"), a Correctional Programs Specialist at the Designation and Sentence Computation Center for the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") [D.E. 33-1], and several exhibits. See [D.E. 33]. On November 6, 2017, Boyd responded in opposition [D.E. 36] and filed additional exhibits [D.E. 36-1]. As explained below, the court grants respondent's motion for summary judgment.

         I.

         On July 12, 2007, Boyd was arrested in Michigan and charged with receiving and concealing a stolen vehicle and violating his parole. See Resp't's App'x, Giddings Decl. ¶ 4 [D.E. 33-1], Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-2] 3 (excerpt from presentence report); c£ Mem. Supp. Pet. [D.E. 1-1] 2. On July 25, 2007, the state court dismissed the vehicle charge and placed Boyd in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections on the parole violation warrant. See Mem. Supp. Pet. [D.E. 1-1] 2; Giddings Decl. ¶ 5; Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-2] 3 (excerpt from presentence report).

         From July 25, 2007, through February 17, 2009, Boyd remained in state custody on his parole violation warrant and pending the disposition of additional state criminal charges.[1] On February 13, 2009, Boyd was charged in the Eastern District of Michigan with distributing cocaine. See Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-11] 2 (administrative remedy). On February 17, 2009, the United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum concerning Boyd. See Mem. Supp. Pet. [D.E. 1-1] 2; Giddings Decl. ¶ 6; Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-4] 4 (writ); Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-6] 3 (USMS prisoner tracking records); Pet'r's Supp. Exs. [D.E. 36-1] 8 (copy of criminal case docket sheet). On August 12, 2011, Boyd pleaded guilty to the federal cocaine charge. See Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-14] 8 (motion for reduction of sentence). Pursuant to the writ, Boyd remained in federal custody from February 17, 2009, until his federal sentencing on March 29, 2012. See Pet'r's Resp. Opp'nMot. Dismiss [D.E. 22-1] 2-4 (detention hearing transcript); Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-6] 3 (USMS prisoner tracking records); cf Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-14] 5 (defense counsel's brief in support of motion for reduction of sentence).

         The federal court imposed Boyd's federal criminal sentence "to run concurrently to... any State Sentence." Resp't's App'x 23 [D.E. 33-5] 3 (criminal judgment); Giddings Decl. ¶ 7; Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-11] 15 (excerpt from sentencing hearing transcript). Accordingly, the BOP designated the Michigan state prison system for service of Boyd's federal sentence, commencing on the date that the federal court imposed the sentence, March 29, 2012, and Boyd's federal sentence began to run on that date. See Pet'r's Supp. Exs. [D.E. 1-2] 2 (BOP administrative remedy response); Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-9] 2 (BOP detainer and notice designating state prison for service of federal sentence). The BOP, however, did not award Boyd any credit for the time Boyd spent in state custody for the parole violation between his July 12, 2007 state arrest and his federal sentencing on March 29, 2012. See Giddings Decl. ¶¶ 14-16; Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-11] 2-11 (Boyd's request for administrative remedy and responses); Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-12] 2-3 (Willis / Kayfez Calculation Worksheet). The BOP calculates Boyd's release date as December 13, 2020. Giddings Decl. ¶ 12.

         On April 11, 2012, Boyd moved to reduce his federal sentence. See Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-14] 4-12. On June 26, 2012, the court held a hearing on the motion and concluded that it lacked the authority to grant the requested relief. See Id. at 18-26; United States v. Wilson. 503 U.S. 329, 333-35 (1992); United States v. Westmoreland. 974 F.2d 738, 737 (6th Cir. 1992).

         On March 25, 2013, the Michigan Department of Corrections conducted a parole violation hearing, found that Boyd had violated his parole, and re-paroled Boyd with the recommendation that Boyd "be released to his federal detainer so that he can begin serving that sentence." Pet'r's Supp. Exs. [D.E. 1-2] 5 (parole violation formal hearing summary and recommendation); Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-7] 2 (same); see Giddings Decl. ¶ 9. On May 4, 2013, the Michigan Department of Corrections discharged Boyd from state custody to his federal detainer. See Giddings Decl. ¶ 10; Resp't's App'x [D.E. 33-8] 2 (MDOC certificate of discharge).

         Boyd seeks credit against his federal sentence from the date of his state arrest, July 12, 2007, until March 29, 2012, the date of his federal sentencing. See Mem. Supp. Pet. [D.E. 1-1] 3; Pet'r's Supp. Exs. [D.E. 1-2] 2; Giddings Decl. ¶ 14. Respondent contends that Boyd is not entitled to any additional sentencing credit.

         II.

         Summary judgment is appropriate when, after reviewing the record taken as a whole, no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc.. 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party may not rest on the allegations or denials in its pleading, see Anderson. 477 U.S. at 248-49, but "must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.. 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (emphasis and quotation omitted). A trial court reviewing a motion for summary judgment should determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. See Anderson. 477 U.S. at 249. In making this determination, the court must view the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Scott v. Harris. 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).

         The BOP may award credit towards a sentence of incarceration for time spent ...


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.