Long v. Wilson, No. 3:2011cv00602 - Document 9 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 5/29/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division BRANDON LONG, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:11CV602 ERIC WILSON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Brandon Long, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("§ Bureau of 6) Petition") . Prisons sentence. No. 2241 ("BOP") has not replied. miscalculated information for Summary Judgment asks the Court submitted outside Rules of dismissal under pleadings are Civil 12(b)(6) presented and Stanton, 671 Respondent's the Rule one 405 U.S. 669, Motion for already before the Court, will be denied. to the the length (Docket No. if and not decide this pleadings. Procedure, motion must be treated as 6) that Federal of his 7) . Long The matter is ripe for disposition. Respondent No. contends Respondent has filed both a Motion to Dismiss (Docket and a Motion Federal Long a if matter According party has matters excluded by Summary (per Judgment to the moved for outside the Court, the the for summary judgment. (1972) Carter v. curiam). (Docket using Because No. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 7) is (Docket I. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS Long's claim, On or in its entirety, reads as follows: about the below stated dates, "Federal Custody" and therefore should be I was in entitled to receive (JTC) Jail Time Credit for said days: From 09/08/2008 through 09/09/2008 I was at (D.O.C.) in Baltimore, MD; From 09/09/2008 through 09/11/2008 I was at (M.C.A.C.) in Baltimore, MD; From 09/11/2008 through 12/04/2008 I was at Wicomico County Detention Center in Baltimore, MD; From 12/08/2008 through 12/18/2008 I remained at (M.C.A.C.) in Baltimore, MD. I have not been awarded credit (§ 2241 Pet. 8 for said dates. (spacing and spelling corrected).) that the Court order the BOP to "credit on said dates." [Long] Long requests for time served (Id.) II. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Summary judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that there is movant Civ. no is P. genuine dispute entitled to 56(a). to motion, and identify Celotex any material a matter of fact and the Fed. R. law." It is the responsibility of the party seeking judgment See to judgment as summary demonstrate as to the inform absence Corp. v. of the court parts the a of of the record which issue of material fact. U.S. 317, genuine Catrett, 477 basis 323 for the (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear trial summary judgment motion may solely on on a dispositive properly be depositions, made answers in to issue, a reliance the the interrogatories, burden of proof and the at pleadings, admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the motion is properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by citing answers to interrogatories, ^specific facts trial.'" Id. (1986)). showing there (quoting former district court Fed. '"Rule a duty to or '"depositions, and admissions on file,' that Additionally, affidavits sift is R. 56 a genuine Civ. does P. not through the designate issue 56(c) and impose for 56(e) upon the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment.'" Forsyth Skotak Cir. v. v. Barr, see only F.3d 1527, 1537 Resins, Tenneco 1992)); consider 19 Inc., 953 Fed. the R. cited Civ. P. materials, (5th F.2d Cir. 909, 56(c)(3) but 1994) it 915 & n.7 (5th court ("The may (quoting need consider other materials in the record."). Respondent because Because the the failed Long asks to lack of (2007). of dismiss his the § 2241 administrative administrative Petition remedies. remedies is an Respondent bears the burden of pleading and exhaustion. In support to exhaust exhaustion affirmative defense, proving Court of his Jones v. Bock, contention, 549 U.S. Respondent 199, 216 submits the affidavit of Lynnell Cox, a Paralegal Specialist at the Federal Correctional Mot. Summ. Affidavit Complex J. are Ex. copies in 2 Butner, ("Cox of North Carolina. Aff.").) Long's various Attached (Mem. to Supp. the Administrative Cox Remedy Requests and the BOP's responses thereto. Respondent's exhaustion argument relies on the BOP's "specific procedures for an inmate to request review of his [or her] sentence computation and to request additional jail credit." (Mem. Supp. J. codified 6.) These specific procedures are Mot. Summ. 28 C.F.R at §§ 542.10-542.19. Long submits only his sworn § 2241 and the attached copies of his Petition grievances. foregoing principles and submissions, (Docket No. In light of 1) the the facts set forth below are established for purposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment. III. A. BOP's SUMMARY OF PERTINENT Grievance Procedure The BOP manages an inmate aspect to of seek his/her own inmates credit, such as Long, issue. 28 an Administrative Remedy Program "to allow formal Federal the FACTS review of an confinement." wishing to request must C.F.R. § issue 28 C.F.R. additional first attempt to 542.13(a). satisfied with the informal resolution, relating If § to any 542.10(a). prior custody informally resolve the inmate is not the inmate must submit a formal written Administrative Remedy Request ("ARR") within "20 calendar the Request days following occurred." 28 the date C.F.R. on which § 542.14(a). basis The for Warden the then issues the first level inmate who response to the ARR. 28 C.F.R. § 542.11(a). An is not satisfied with the Warden's response may submit an Appeal on the appropriate form (BP-10) to the appropriate Regional Director within 20 calendar days of the date the Warden signed the response. An inmate who is not satisfied with the Regional Director's response may submit an Appeal on the appropriate form (BP-11) to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days of the date the Regional Director signed the response. . . . Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative appeal. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). B. Long' s ARRs On August 14, 2009, the BOP received Long's first properly filed ARR complaining that the BOP miscalculated his jail credit ("First ARR"). Warden denied awarded the Maryland." Regional (§ 2241 Pet. the time the ARR 27, 2009, the state had towards his state sentence question ! 6.) On August "because the already in Long appealed the First ARR to the (Id^ at If 7-8.) Director. of Director in (Cox Aff. Regional Director, appeal First 13. J1 On October 1, 2009, the echoing the Warden's reasoning, denied Long's First ARR. advised Long that (§ he 2241 Pet. could appeal 9.) this The Regional denial to the 1 Long attached copies of his various ARRs to his § 2241 Petition but failed to separately number these documents. Accordingly, citations to Long's attachments will reference the page numbers assigned by the Court's CM/ECF system. General Counsel. Aff. (Id. ) Long did not pursue an appeal.2 (Cox SI 10.) On March ARR") 23, mirroring Warden denied (Id. SI 9.) 2011, his the Long submitted requests stated Second ARR as in the repetitive First on ("Second ARR. April Long failed to appeal the Second ARR. IV. A. a second ARR The 1, 2011. (Id. SI 10.) ANALYSIS Exhaustion "Exhaustion is an important doctrine in both administrative and habeas law . (2006). Prior properly . exhaust . to ." Woodford seeking his or v. judicial her Ngo, 548 relief, U.S. an administrative 81, inmate v. U.S. Little Supreme 90 F. App'x 444, 445 Bureau v. of Prisons, Hopkins, Court 638 with an procedural rules," (4th Cir. 2004) F.3d F.2d 953, explains compliance 243 that 953-54 634 This deadlines 548 U.S. and McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. Id. Cir. 2001); 1981)). other 90, agency addresses the issues on the merits.'" v. (2d exhaustion at McClung (citing Carmona (6th Cir. "[p]roper agency's Woodford, 629, must remedies. requirement extends to inmates filing § 2241 petitions. v. Shearin, 88 "'so The demands critical that the (quoting Pozo 2002)). An 2 Long states that he failed to pursue an appeal to the General General Counsel Counsel "[b]ecause would Director's decisions." go I did'nt against (§ 2241 Pet. [sic] the 6.) think warden's the and Office of Regional inmate's failure to properly exhaust the administrative grievance process prior to filing his or her habeas petition renders the unexhausted claims procedurally defaulted. 90 F. App'x excused at a upon 445-46. showing (citing Carmona, Generally, First, its the exhaustion with it is haled 'disregard of [the promotes 145 The Here, in and may prejudice. requirement an agency respect into to only be at 445 Id. programs court,' two purposes. 548 administers discourages Second, U.S. (quoting McCarthy it it and procedures.' Woodford, original) serves 'an opportunity to correct the federal agency's] efficiency." alteration cause default 243 F.3d at 634-35) ) . mistakes before proper of "[e]xhaustion gives own 140, This procedural McClung, v. at exhaustion 89 (second Madigan, 503 U.S. (1992)). applicable prison exhaustion." because rules "define Jones Bock, failed Long v. to seek 549 a the boundaries of U.S. 199, 218 (2007). review from the General Counsel for the First ARR or from the Regional Director for the Second ARR, Yannucci (E.D. RBH, 548 Va. v. he failed Stansberry, July 28, at 90. at exhaust No. 2009); 2009 WL 2430662, U.S. to his 2:08CV561, Barnhardt v. *3 (D.S.C. Aug. administrative 2009 WL remedies. 2421546, Mitchell, 6, 2009); No. at *3 0:09-1452- see Woodford, B. Cause And Prejudice Failure to exhaust administrative remedies F. App'x at 445 (citing Carmona, of administrative circumstances fully pursuing the his "[w]hen prisoner's . 90 . control administrative prejudice doctrine] be 243 F.3d at 634). exhaustion, beyond only See McClung, excused upon a showing of cause and prejudice. . remedies, the remedies no irreparable relief; (3) certain genuine injury may administrative instances a 2003) Here, an him from [cause and occur appeal for without "(1) available adequate relief; immediate would be has raised Beharry v. Carmona, futile; a Ashcroft, judicial and (4) in substantial 329 F.3d 51, 62 (internal quotation marks omitted). Long admits that he affirmatively chose not to pursue Long's belief that such an appeal would be unsuccessful notwithstanding (id.), he appeal opportunity plaintiff constitutional question." (2d Cir. legitimate excuses this failure to exhaust." Cause and prejudice requires: (2) In the case preclude 243 F.3d at 634. provide can of the First ARR. (§ 2241 Pet. 6.) fails to demonstrate cause and prejudice. Beharry, 329 F.3d at 62 ("That [Petitioner's] argument would likely have failed is not that tantamount raise it . unexhausted . to . and stating ."). he it would Accordingly, fails to show have because cause been futile to Long's claim is and prejudice, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 7) will be granted and Long's claim will be denied. V. Respondent's Motion CONCLUSION to Dismiss (Docket No. denied. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment will granted. the be § 2241 Long's Petition claim will (Docket No. be 1) denied will be 6) will be (Docket No. 7) with prejudice, denied, and the action will be dismissed. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Long and counsel of record. /s/ fi.iP Robert E. Payne Date: /^Itf* ^^t^Zoft^ Richmond, Virginia Senior United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
