United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
D. WHITNEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court upon initial review of
John Anthony Barreiro's pro se Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.)
is a prisoner of the State of Florida, who was convicted of
offenses he committed there in 2013, 2014, and 2015.
See FLDOC Offender Network, available at
Barreiro, John; DC No. R18579, last viewed Jan. 9, 2020). He
was sentenced to 5-7 ½ years in the custody of the
Florida Department of Corrections (“FLDOC”).
Judgment was entered on March 31, 2016.
to Petitioner, the FLDOC notified him that Cherokee County,
North Carolina had filed a detainer request related to
pending charges in that county. Specifically, on June 6,
2011, a Cherokee County grand jury issued a true bill of
indictment charging Petitioner with possession of a firearm
by a felon, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.1;
the court issued an order for Petitioner's arrest on the
indictment. See Indict.; Order for Arrest
(Doc. No. 1-1 at 5-7.).
asserts that upon learning of the detainer, he began seeking
disposition of the charges under the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers Act (“IADA”) without success. According
to Petitioner, he has filed motions with unspecified
“Cherokee County authorities, ” who have not
responded. He contends that because of the detainer, he has
been denied work release and community custody by the FLDOC.
Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition arguing that
Cherokee County's refusal to dispose of the charges
pursuant to the IADA violates his rights to due process, a
speedy trial, and equal protection under the law.
STANDARE OF REVIEW
careful review has been made of this Petition pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for
the United States District Court, the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and other habeas corpus
statutes. Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal
court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed
by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a
potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
IADA is a “compact entered into by 48 States, the
United States, and the District of Columbia to establish
procedures for resolution of one State's outstanding
charges against a prisoner of another State.” New
York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 111 (2000). Under Article
III of the IADA, when an inmate serving a prison sentence
makes an appropriate request for disposition of an
outstanding charge against him in another state, that
“receiving” state has 180 days to retrieve the
inmate for resolution of the outstanding charges against him
in the receiving state. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §
15A-761. Upon consideration of the § 2241 Petition, this
Court cannot conclude that Petitioner is not entitled to
has named the State of North Carolina and Cherokee County as
Respondent's in this action. A habeas claimant ordinarily
must name his immediate custodian at the time of filing.
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004).
So, where a petitioner challenges his “present physical
confinement, ” that person is “the warden of the
facility where the respondent is being held.”
Id. Thus, to the extent Petitioner claims a
constitutional violation because the FLDOC has denied him
work release and community custody due to the North Carolina
detainer, he must raise that claim in the federal district
court in Florida that has jurisdiction over the warden of his
correctional facility. See id.; see also Nelson
v. George, 399 U.S. 224, 225 (1970).
immediate physical custodian rule, by its terms, does not
apply when a habeas petitioner challenges something other
than his present physical confinement[, ]” however.
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 438. To the extent Petitioner
challenges the lawfulness of the detainer and/or the pending
North Carolina charges, the proper respondent is the North
Carolina court or official who lodged the detainer. See
reviewed North Carolina's Agreement on Detainers, §
15A-761, it is not clear to this Court who or what entity
should be named as the respondent in this action, as the
Agreement refers variously to the court with jurisdiction
over the indictment, the prosecuting official of that
judicial district, and the State, itself. Therefore, the
Court shall direct the Clerk of Court to amend the docket to
add the Superior Court of Cherokee County and the District
Attorney for Cherokee County as respondents in this action.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of Court shall amend the docket to add the
Superior Court of Cherokee County and Ashley Welch, District
Attorney, Prosecutorial District 43, as Respondents; the
Clerk shall terminate ...