Reaves v. Hester, No. 2:2012cv00003 - Document 10 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - Petitioner's motion to proceed under § 2241 is DENIED.Petitioner's motion to amend is GRANTED. The Petitioner shall file an Amended Petition on the appropriate forms, incorporating the claims stated in his Motion to Amend, within thirty days of entry of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 7/10/12 and filed on 7/11/12. Copies mailed as directed on 7/11/12. (jcow, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGI Norfolk Division CLERK. US DISTRICT COURT FRANK REAVES, NOHFOl k \M Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO. C.K. HESTER, 2:12cv003 Warden Respondent OPINION AND ORDER On January 4, 2012, the Court filed a pro se petition for writ of Frank Reaves pursuant to 28 received habeas U.S.C. subsequently paid the $5.00 filing fee. and conditionally corpus submitted by § 2254. ECF No. Petitioner 7. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the petition be filed. Presently before the Court are proceed under 28 U.S.C § 2241, ECF No. his 15 of petition pursuant Procedure, ECF to No. 8. Rule For the Petitioner's is GRANTED. to 6, and a motion to amend the Federal Rules of Civil reasons Petitioner's motion to proceed under 28 U.S.C. and his motion to amend motion stated herein, § 2241 is DENIED I. Petitioner is Factual Background incarcerated in Virginia state pursuant to sentences imposed in 1991 and 1993.1 prison He was released on mandatory parole in June 2002. In July 2003, he was arrested for violating the conditions of parole and re-incarcerated. His parole was revoked subsequent to a parole revocation hearing on October "good 12, 2004. time Upon credits" incarceration. revocation that Petitioner of had now parole, accrued during challenges the credits in a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. the Commonwealth rescinded Amendment's Due Article Section I, Process X. them Clause The Petitioner prior of these § 2254, arguing that violation the instant his loss in and lost Ex Post motion, of the Facto 14th Clause however, asks of the court to treat his petition as one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. I. ANALYSIS A. Petitioner's Motion to Proceed under § 2241 Petitioner convictions. does Rather not he challenge challenges his the underlying duration of state his court sentence based on the loss of his good time credits. Whether petitioner's claims are U.S.C. § procedural properly 2241 is hurdles than § 2241. cognizable significant and a under because more 28 U.S.C. § 2254 deferential See White v. Lambert, -2- 2254 contains standard 370 F.3d 1002, 1 The facts are drawn from the Petition, § 1008 of or 28 greater review (9th Cir. 2003) (listing differences between the statutes). if Petitioner is allowed to file under § 2241, statute of limitations and second or that might otherwise be grounds For example, he can avoid any successive petition issues for dismissing a petition filed under § 2254.2 See Woodfin v. Anqelone, 213 F. Supp. 2d 593, 595 (E.D. Va. 2002). Petitioner properly 2254 applies to writs custody pursuant U.S.C. to § 2254(a). 2003), the challenging credits judgment v. corpus Circuit of court." filed State 327 considered Wade, 2254. by F.3d of . 328 his Section persons court. whether rescission revocation was of a State a Robinson, Commonwealth's upon parole claim under § habeas judgment Wade Fourth the of the In filed his . ."28 (4th a F.3d Cir. prisoner good time "in custody pursuant to 327 "in at 330-31.3 the The Circuit acknowledged that the petitioner was in custody pursuant to an order nevertheless of the reasoned Virginia that he Parole was in Board. Id. at 331. custody pursuant It to his 2 The Court presents this scenario as a hypothetical possibility and takes no position on whether infect the instant petition. these infirmities actually 3 The question presented in Wade was whether the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) applied to Wade's petition. Both § 2244(d)(1) and § 2254 apply only to "person[s] in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court." In deciding § 2241(d)(1) was applicable to Wade's petition, the Circuit looked to § 2254, and stated "as section 2254 makes clear, the defining feature of a state prisoner's habeas claim is that it presents a challenge to his custody." Wade, 327 F.3d at 331. -3- prior criminal conviction and sentence even if custody pursuant Id. (emphasis to in the judgment of the original). a he was "also in state executive agency." This reasoning compels the conclusion that even though Petitioner is challenging something other than his underlying conviction, he to a state court judgment and § 2254 is the proper vehicle for his is in custody pursuant claim. Although § 2254, Petitioner's the question is claim is whether properly the Court brought may under nevertheless consider his petition under § 2241. The Fourth Circuit has not squarely answered this question. It has, however, recognized that the prevailing view among other circuits is that § 2254 is the exclusive avenue of habeas relief for a state prisoner, when the petitioner conviction. (4th Cir. v. See Gregory 2007) Coady Walker v. denied, 722-23 932 v. U.S. (8th Cir. (11th Cir. (10th petition 1029 2001); 2003). Cir. under 216 370 251 F.3d F.3d 626, (2000); 218 F. other App'x F.3d at 1005); 321 F.3d 274, 480, 632-33 Crouch U.S.C. § 2254, -4- the 267 n.* (2d Cir. Cir. 2001); 2000), cert, 251 F.3d 351 F.3d 1049, petitioner his see also Cook (3d Norris, Medberry v. Crosby, ("Although 266, (7th Cir. v. than 277-79 484-86 But see Aquiar v. Tafoya, 2004) 28 something Coleman, of Parole, Vaughn, O'Brien, 531 v. (citing White, New York State Div. 2003); 62 challenges even 720, 1058- 95 F. App'x 931, filed district his court habeas properly (seeking restoration challenging the of 902 execution days of his of earned sentence under 2241.") (citing Montez v. McKinna, 208 2000)); Calloway 2:01CV927, at *2 n.l v. (E.D. Angelone, Va. 2002) No. filed a petition under § 2254 "pursuant unlawful to an F.3d 862, (holding that a warrant 28 2002 as U.S.C. 865 32392666, prisoner, he was because § (10th Cir. WL state alleging that parole credit) who in custody he did not receive credit for his good conduct time," should have filed the petition under § 2241). Although district to the contrary, there see Calloway, is authority in this 2002 WL 3239266, at *2 n.l, this Court follows the majority approach in concluding that § 2254 is the exclusive remedy for a petitioner who is in custody pursuant to a state court criminal conviction, even when his petition itself, (E.D. Mar. 3:07cv00691, 3, judicial provisions, 226, Woodfin, permitted to (2002); 213 F. other 3:09CV167, (citing at *2 which are limit than Huff the v. 772811, purpose of preserve federal intrusion Taylor, circumvent the -5- 595 529 into state Saffold, U.S. ("Petitioners procedural No. 2254's Williams 2d at *2 § See Carey v. Supp. at Virginia, proceedings. v. conviction July 7, 2008)). Any designed to federal the 2010 WL (E.D.Va. frustrate and and collateral 214, (2000); would resources criminal 2010) 2008 WL 2674030, conclusion gatekeeping U.S. something see Trisler v. Mahon, Va. other challenges 536 420, 436 are not requirements and gatekeeping mechanisms of §§ 2254 and 2255 merely by labeling a petition as one brought under § 2241."). In finds 651 addition support (1996), to for the this aforementioned position in authorities, Felker v. Turpin, and the practices of the Fourth Circuit. the Supreme Court stated that "[o]ur authority to relief to state prisoners is limited by § 2254, the conditions under which such relief may to the judgment of Id. at that of § 662. To the 2254's extent conditions pursuant to the to judgment of filed a F.3d at 1007; Walker, 216 633. In Felker, granted to *a the application by state prisoners court, these conditions. F.3d at U.S. grant habeas precludes such petitioners from pursuing avenues of would allow them to circumvent 518 a State court.'" Felker mandates petitions Court which specifies be person in custody pursuant custody the the in case relief that See White, Logically, then, 370 § 2254 "is the exclusive vehicle for prisoners in custody pursuant to a state court that custody. F. Supp. judgment who wish ..." Walker, 2d at 595 to 216 ("Unlike 28 challenge F.3d at U.S.C. § anything 633; affecting see Woodfin, 2255, § 2254 does 213 not contain a provision authorizing the use of § 2241 to challenge a state conviction when § 2254 affords an inadequate remedy."). Fourth Circuit precedent presumes that § 2254 is the proper and only state avenue court of custody habeas who relief challenge -6- available something to petitioners other than in their conviction. (4th See Cir. review state Wadell 2012) to a credits remanded to court who his Pep't (applying state prisoner v. challenged brought Corr., 2254's judgment sentence). claims § of the § F.3d deferential denying the 1983 384, relief of Circuit 394-95 standard habeas misapplication Moreover, under 680 has challenging of to good a time repeatedly the loss or denial of good time credits for consideration under § 2254. See, e.g., Royster v. Polk, Ewell v. Anqelone, v. Rodriguez, 299 F. App'x 250, 55 F. App'x 182, 183 411 U.S. 475, 500 251 (4th (4th Cir. (1973) Cir. 2003); (holding 2008); Preiser that the exclusive remedy for a prisoner seeking restoration of good time credits suggests is by writ that § of 2241 habeas might corpus). be an None of alternate these avenue opinions of habeas relief for these petitioners. The foregoing conclusion relief that for authorities that § 2254 Petitioner. is overwhelmingly the exclusive Accordingly, compel avenue Petitioner's of the habeas motion to proceed under § 2241 is DENIED. B. Petitioner's Motion Petitioner petition Procedure. pursuant a Motion to Rule 15 of Federal the rights notice filed to Whereas Petitioner's adequate has to Amend original were that petition violated violation -7- the Amend seems because of he parole his Rules to original of Civil allege that not given was could lead to rescission of his claims process should (1962); to in his prior be motion to freely Fed. accrued good time credits, to amend revocation given. R. Civ. P. is of Foman 15(a). that these v. he the thrust of the was not credits. Davis, Accordingly, 371 afforded Leave to U.S. 178, due amend 182 Petitioner's motion amend is GRANTED. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to the petitioner along with four copies of the form used by this Court for petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and one copy of the Petitioner's original petition and Motion to Amend, which are attached hereto. The Petitioner shall file an Amended Petition on the appropriate forms, incorporating the claims stated in his Motion to Amend, within thirty days of entry of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Norfolk, Virginia July \0 ' 2012 -8-
]]>
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.
