Leonard v. Clarke et al, No. 7:2018cv00442 - Document 11 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 8/23/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
rLERK' S OFFICEU ,S.DIST.C'OURI AT ROANOG ,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR TH E W E STERN DISTRICT OF VTR GING R O AN OK E DIW SIO N H O W AR D LEON ARD , Petitioner, V. HAROLD CLAQKE,c AL., R espondents. A(J6 23 2019 IA .DUD BYJUL : t2' ) C ASE NO .7:18CV 00442 ) )' ) M EM ORANDUM OPINION ) ) By:GlenE.Conrad ) SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge ) , C RK Petitioner Howard Leonard,a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,filed this petition for a writofhabeascorpusunder28U.S.C.j2241.LeonardasselvdthatoneTennesseejurisdiction had pending charges against him that w ere not resolved w hile Leonard was in Tennessee,in violation ofthelnterstateAgreementon DetainersAct(C1ADA''). The respondenthasfiled a m otion to dism issLeonard'spetition asm oot.U pon review ofthe record,thecourtconcludesthat respondent's motion m ustbe granted. The m aterialfactsarenotdisputed.Leonard isserving V irginiasentencesofim prisonm ent andiscurrentlyconfinedatPocahontasCorrectionalCenter(:TCC''),aprisonfacilityoperatedby theVirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(<VDOC''). Leonardhasbeen in VDOC custody since February 12,2018. V DOC notifed him on February 28,2018,that during the previous m onth, two Tennessee copnties had lodged detainers againstLeonard w ith VD OC :a Sullivan County detainerfrom 2017,basedonpending chargesinthatjurisdiction;and aCarterCounty detainer from 2017,based on a pending charge forevading arrest. Leonard v. Clarke et al Doc. 11 On M arch 20,2018,prison officials presented Leonard w ith IA DA Form s Iand 11,based on multiple pending chargesagainsthim in Sullivan County.Leonard signed theform son M arch 20,2018,indicatingthatV wishedtoreturntoSullivanCountytoresolvetheoutstandingcriminal charges. ln A prilof2018,officials transported him to Tennessee,the Sullivan County charges Dockets.Justia.com RK w ere resolved,and Leonard was returned PCC on June 13,2018. Shortly thereafter,VD OC received IAD Form IX from Sullivan County and copies ofthe circuitcourt's ordersregarding the outcom e of Leonard's crim inalproceedings. V DO C then rem oved the Sullivan County detainer from Leonard'sV DOC record. On M ay 14,2018,VDO C received paperwork from the CircuitCourtfor Carter County, Tennessee,aboutLeonard's charges in thatjurisdiction,including a copy of a courtorder indicating thatthechargeofevading arresthad been dism issed.Based on'thisinformation,VD OC rem oved the CarterCounty detainerfrom Leonard'srecord. The respondentprovides an affidavitfrom V DOC D etainer Coordinator M elanie Cale, verifying this inform ation. M s.Cale statesthatV DO C hasno active detainers againstLeonard, and hehasprovided no evidence to the contrary. The IA DA isa com pactam ong 48 states,the federalgovernment,and othersw ith the aim ofestablishingproceduresforresolutionofonejurisdiction'soutstandingcriminalchargesagainst anotherjurisdiction'sprisoner. See18U.S.C.app.2.TennesseeandVirginiaareparticipating states.Tenn.CodeAnn.j40-31-101;Va.Codej53.1-210.UnderArticle1IIoftheIADA,when an inm ate serving aprison sentencem akesan appropriate requestfordisposition ofan outstanding charge againsthim in anotherstate,thatSirecçiving''state has 180 daysto retrieve thatinm ate for resolution ofalloutstanding chargesagainsthim in the receiving state. A rticle IV ofthe IA DA in V irginia and Tennessee authorizesHreceiving''state authorities to request temporary custody of another state's inm ate to try him on a pending charge. This provision includes an anti-shuttling requirem entthatthe inm ate should be tried on al1charges pending against him in the receiving state before he is returned to incarceration in the sending state,orelseanyuntriedchargemustbedismissedwithprejudice. Leonard asserted a claim underthe anti-shuttling provision in Article lV . He argued that thisprovision wasviolated becausew hen hewastransported to Sullivan County to face hischarges there,hew asnotalso taken to CarterCounty to dispose ofitschargesagainsthim whilehe w asin Tennessee. Thus, he argued that this court should dism iss the Carter County charges w ith prejudice.' Fherespondentfiledamotiontodismiss,arguingthatbecauseCarterCountynow has noactivedetaineragainstLeonard,hisj2254petitionmustbedismissed asmoot.Leonardhas notresponded to the m otion to dism iss.l The tim e allotled forhisresponsehas long since expired, how ever,m aking the m otion ripe fordisposition. ArticlellIoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionconfersjurisdictiontofederalcourtsonlywhen there isan actualxxcase''orI'controversy.'' To have acaseorcontroversy underA rticle111,plaintiff mustshow,amongotherthings,thathehassufferedorwillsuffersom 'esol'tofinjuryinfactand itislikely theinjurywillberedressed by afavorabledecision. Luianv.DefendersofW ildlife, 504U.S.555,560(1992).Ifoneoftheseelementsislackingatanypointduringthelitigation,the casebecomesmoot.Townesv.Jarvis.577 F.3d543,546-47(4thCir.2009)(holdingthatifno realistic possibility existsthata plaintiffcan obtain the ultim ate relief,he w illfailto satisfy the redressabilitypronf')(internalquotationmarksandcitationsomitted);Incumaav.Ozmint,507 F.3d 281,287 (4th Cir.2007) (flnding case mootifpetitionerSshas no furtherneed for gthe requested)relief'). ltisundisputed thatneitherSullivan County norCarterCounty haveany detainerspending againstLeonard.Thus,thecourtconcludesthathenolongerhasanyinjurpin-factthatthiscourt couldaddress.AlthoughLeonarddemandsdismissaloftheCarterCountychargeswithprejudice, 1CounselfortherespondentstatesthatwhenshespokewithLeonardaboutthiscaseinOctoberof2018,he stated thathehadnotreceived acopy oftheCarterCounty courtorderaboutthe dismissalofthechargesthereand hadnotreceived anoticethattheCarterCounty detainerhadbeen rem oved from hisrecord. Counselthen provided copies ofthese documentsto Leonard. thiscourtcouldnotgrantsuchrelief.UndertheIADA (aluthoritytorenderadelmlnerinvalldO d * dismisstlleunderlyingchargesisG ordedtothecharging,andnottbesending,Judsdiction.'' Tungafe v.Thoms.45F.App'x502,504-05(6th Cir.2002)(citingIADA M - icles1H(d);W (e); V(c)).lnLeonard'scase,thechargingjudsdicfonwasTennessee.Accore gly,thlscourthasno jurisdctiontodlsmlssanyofMsTennesseechsrgesw1t11prejudice. Forthereasonsstated,thecourtconcludesthatthemotlon to diqmlssLeonsrd'speGtson mustbegranted.An appropriateorderwlllenterthis'day.TheClerk isdlrectedtosendcopiesof thismemorandum oplnion O d accompanyhg orderto petiionerand to colmselofrecord forthe . respondent. ENTER:Thls O day ofAugust, 2019. SeniorUnlted StatesDie ctJudge 4
]]>
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.
