Barr v. Director of the Department of Corrections, No. 3:2013cv00785 - Document 21 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. It is so Ordered. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 03/02/2015. (ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Barr v. Director of the Department of Corrections Doc. 21 p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT P\ r\\ 1 MAR-•3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 2015 Richmond Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICTCOURl MARTIN V. BARR, RICHMOND. VA III, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 3:13CV785 DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, proceeding corpus pro the V. filed to 28 and Recommendation Barr has objections Barr, this U.S.C. On December 22, action. Barr's se, pursuant No. 1).^ Report Martin petition § 2014, 2254 a for {"§ Virginia a writ 2254 recommending of habeas Petition," that the For the reasons overruled be inmate ECF the Magistrate Judge issued a objected. will III, and the Court dismiss that follow, action will be dismissed. I. The Magistrate BACKGROUND Judge made the following findings and recommendations: In his § 2254 Petition, Barr demands federal habeas relief upon the following ground: Because constitutionality ^ The Court corrects of of the Carroll [v. the illegal Johhnson, capitalization, spelling and punctuation in the quotations from Barr's submissions. Dockets.Justia.com 685 S.E.2d 647 (Va. 2009)], Petitioner has been denied a state judicial forum within which to challenge the computation of his state sentences. This oversight decision in Carroll provides no by the Virginia Court System over [the Virginia Department of Corrections' (hereinafter, "VDOC")] calculation of an inmate's term of incarceration. Thus, this lack of recourse to a state judicial forum raises a federal due process violation. {§ 2254 Pet. 18.) Respondent asserts that Barr has failed to state a cognizable basis for federal habeas relief and moves responded. to dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) (ECF No. 8.) Barr has For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) be GRANTED and the action be DISMISSED. A. Explanation of Carroll v. Johnson Because the thrust of Barr's § 2254 Petition challenges the decision in Carroll v. Johnson, the Court provides a preliminary discussion of that decision. Before Carroll, "habeas jurisdiction in Virginia state court was limited to cases that asserted a prisoner's right to immediate release from custody. The Carroll case . . . extended this jurisdiction to include cases that might affect the duration of necessarily custody." a prisoner's confinement but would not result in his immediate release from Bragg v. Clarke, No. 2:12-cv-161, 2013 WL 3087263, at *4 (E.D. Va. June 17, 2013). Specifically, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated: Our decision today does expand habeas corpus holding only concerns not dramatically jurisdiction. Our cases in which an order, entered in the petitioner's favor, interpreting a conviction or a sentence, will, as a matter of law and standing alone, directly impact the duration of a petitioner's confinement. Our holding does not extend habeas corpus jurisdiction to cases in which an order entered in the petitioner's favor will only give rise to a possibility of reducing the petitioner's term of imprisonment. Thus, disputes which only tangentially affect an inmate's confinement, such as prison classification issues concerning the rate at which a prisoner earns good conduct or sentence credits, or challenges to parole board decisions, are not proper matters for habeas corpus jurisdiction because an order entered in the petitioner's favor in those cases will not result in an order interpreting convictions or sentences that, on its face and standing alone, will directly impact the duration of the petitioner's sentence. Carroll, 685 S.E.2d at 652 (citation omitted). Thus, subsequent to Carroll, a Virginia inmate could bring a claim asserting that the VDOC failed to correctly calculate his sentence, if success on such a claim would automatically accelerate his release, even if i t would not 652-55 B. result in his immediate release. See id. at (analyzing the merits of such a claim). Procedural History According to Barr, in 2013, he received a "legal update sheet and noticed that the VDOC had miscalculated his state sentence[(s)]." {§ 2254 Pet. 17.) On October 4, 2013, Barr filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus Virginia. See Petition 1, Barr v. Dir. of the with the Supreme for Writ of Habeas Dep't of Corr., No. Court Corpus of at 131540, at 1 (Va. filed Oct. 4, 2013). In that petition, however, Barr failed to raise the alleged error by the VDOC in calculating his state sentences. See id. Ex. A, at 1-2. Instead, Barr raised the same challenge to the illegality of Carroll v. Johnson that he pursues in his § 2254 Petition. Id. On November 6, 2013, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed the petition because "the Court is of the opinion that habeas corpus does not lie in this matter and that the writ of habeas corpus should not issue as prayed for." Barr v. (Va. Nov. Dir. 6, of the 2013) Dep't of Corr., (citing Carroll, No. 131540, at 1 685 S.E.2d at 652). C. Analysis In order to obtain federal habeas relief, at a minimum, a petitioner must demonstrate that he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution treaties of the United States." Thus, or laws or 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). "claims of error occurring in a state post- conviction proceeding federal habeas corpus cannot serve as a basis for relief." Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 {4th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). This is so because the habeas petitioner's detention results from the underlying state conviction, not the state collateral proceeding. Lawrence v. Branker^ 517 F.3d 700, 717 (4th Cir. 2008) ("[E]ven where there is some error petitioner because in is the state not post-conviction entitled assignment to of proceedings, federal error habeas relating to a relief those post-conviction proceedings represents an attack on a proceeding collateral to detention and not to the detention itself." (citing Bryant, 848 F.2d at 493; Bell-Bey v. Roper, 499 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Dago, 441 F.3d 1238, 1248 (10th Cir. 2006))) . Barr has not raised a claim that demonstrates that his custody or the calculation of his sentence violates the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Instead, he generally challenges the scope of Virginia's post-conviction review for sentence calculations. Such a challenge fails to provide a cognizable basis for federal habeas corpus relief. Bell-Bey, 499 F.3d at 756 (internal and external citations, quotation marks, and alteration omitted) ("Because the Constitution does not guarantee the existence of state post-conviction proceedings, an infirmity in a state post-conviction proceeding does not raise a constitutional issue cognizable in a federal habeas application."). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) be GRANTED and the action be DISMISSED. (Report and Recommendation entered Dec. 22, 2014) original). (alteration in II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION "The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has responsibility to make court." 1993) Estrada v. no a presumptive final determination Witkowski, (citing Mathews v. weight, 816 F. Weber, the remains with this Supp. 423 U.S. and 408, 261, 410 270-71 (D.S.C. (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which filing objection of district is objections judge to made." to focus a 28 U.S.C. magistrate's attention on § 636(b)(1). report those enables issues-factual legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute." Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). recommendation, 28 U.S.C. recourse computation of two reasons. BARR'S OBJECTIONS two objections. to his a state sentence Initially, judicial First, on his Barr forum to violates due insists the challenge the process. As this objection lacks merit Barr's contention that he cannot raise any challenge to the calculation of his based Thomas v. When reviewing the magistrate's illustrated by the Magistrate Judge, is and § 636(b)(1). Barr raises for the this Court "may also receive further evidence." III. lack of "The misreading of the sentence in state court decision in Carroll v. Johhnson, 685 S.E.2d 647 suggestion, Carroll did not inmate challenge (Va. to Rather, in habeas the Carroll, jurisdiction foreclose execution the Virginia to include challenges the execution of his entered in the petitioner's a sentence, will, directly impact Carroll, 685 event the as the execution does 499 F.3d 752, Barr's violate (8th Cir. second against violation. 1039-40 his her Court the so long as interpreting a of a law and Virginia sentence. expanded where sentence, of or Barr's petitioner "an order, conviction or standing petitioner's (citation omitted). state alone, confinement." Second, in any the Constitution, Bell-Bey v. Roper,. 2007). is somewhat more opaque, but no Barr insists that the denial of pretrial jail his (Objs. (4th Cir. difficulty is of ability of a cases matter objection more meritorious. credit 652 the to state post-conviction remedy to challenge the not 756 a Contrary Supreme favor, duration S.E.2d at lack of 2009). 5 sentence (citing 1976)). that he has amounts Durkin to v. a Davis, constitutional 538 F.2d The Court does not disagree. not raised a 1037, Barr's claim that demonstrates that his custody or the calculation of his sentence violates the Constitution or the laws generally challenges review sentence for the of the scope calculations. United of States. Virginia's Instead, he post-conviction Barr's Objections Recommendation Dismiss (ECF will No. 8) be will be accepted will action will be dismissed. be overruled. and granted. The adopted. Barr's The Court will deny a The Report Motion claims and and to the certificate of appealability. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. ri Date: Richmond, Virginia Robert E. ^ Payne /s/ (LLf 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.
