Adams v. Joyner

1

FLOYD RUSSELL ADAMS, JR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN JOYNER, Respondent.

No. 7:19-cv-106-JMH

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, Pikeville

February 23, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Joseph M. Hood, Senior U.S. District Judge.

Petitioner Floyd Russell Adams, Jr., is a federal prisoner currently confined at the United States Penitentiary (“USP”)-Big Sandy located in Inez, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Adams has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the calculation of his sentence by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). [DE 1]. Respondent has filed his response to the petition. [DE 13]. Adams has not filed a reply to the response, and the time for doing so has expired. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

I.

On December 3, 2010, Adams pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in Case No. 40 144-A in the Gregg County (Texas) District Court. [DE 13-4; DE 13-5].^[1]Adams was sentenced to a term of five years of confinement and was paroled on October 13, 2011. Id.

On October 24, 2012, Adams was arrested by Texas state authorities on charges of manufacturing/delivery of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, two counts of tampering/fabricating physical evidence with intent to impair, and driving with a suspended license. Id.; [DE 13-3]. On October 25, 2012, a parole violation warrant was executed for Adams's violation of his parole in Case No. 40, 144-A, and Adams remained in state custody on his parole violation. Id.

On April 24, 2013, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Texas issued an indictment charging Adams with being a felon in possession of a firearm on October 24, 2012 (the date of his Texas arrest) in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). United States v. Adams, No. 6:13-cr-037-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. 2013) at ¶ 1. Because Adams was in state custody in relation to his parole violation, a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was issued by the federal court in Texas on May 3, 2013. Id. at DE 7. Adams was arrested on his federal charges and appeared in federal court pursuant to the writ for his Initial Appearance and Arraignment on May 14, 2013. Id. at ¶ 7; DE 9.

On September 4, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement with the United States, Adams pleaded guilty in federal court to possession of a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2). Id. at ¶ 24. On January 28, 2014, Adams was sentenced by United States District Court Judge Leonard E. Davis to a term of imprisonment of 120 months. Id. at ¶ 42. During the sentencing hearing, the following exchange occurred:

THE COURT: All right. That motion is granted. Is there anything further from the Government?

MR. BALDWIN: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: From the Defense?

MR. HAWK: There is one thing. It is in reference to jail custody, Your Honor. Paragraph 28 reflects that the date after his arrest, which was October 24th of 2012, TDC put a blue warrant on him for this offense. And to the extent possible, we would ask the Court to have his place of designation originally be TDC. We recognize it is only a little over six months, but we would ask that the first six months to be designated TDC, so it is possible to have that sentence concurrent since it is the same conduct.

THE COURT: Is there any objection?

MR. BALDWIN: No. objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The Court will note and make a part of the judgment that the Defendant was in custody from October 24th, 2012 pursuant to a blue warrant; and at the -- and his place of confinement the Court hereby designates as from that period of October 24th, 2012 to May 14th, 2013 when he was writted into federal custody, that his place of confinement be Texas Department of Corrections for that approximate six-month period from October 24th, 2012 to May 14 of 2013.^[2]

Id. at ¶ 48, at 9-10.

On January 31, 2014, Judge Davis entered a Judgment imposing the 120-month federal sentence, which included a recommendation “that the Bureau of Prisons designate the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division to be the place of service of this sentence, thereby making this sentence concurrent with the defendant's imprisonment or future term [of] imprisonment pursuant to the judgment in Docket Number 40, 144-A, Possession of a Controlled Substance, 188th District Court, Gregg County, TX.” United States v. Adams, No. 6:13-cr-037-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. 2013) at DE 42. On January 31, 2014, Adams was returned from his temporary custody of the USMS back to the custody of the state of Texas. [DE 13-6].

On February 20, 2014, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice revoked Adams's parole in his 2010 case (No. 40, 144-A) due to his January 2014 federal conviction. [DE 13-8]. Adams was remanded to the Texas Department of Corrections to serve the remainder of the 5-year sentence previously imposed in Case No. 40, 144-A. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice applied prior custody credits towards Adams's state sentence for his time in custody from October 25, 2012, through October 15, 2015, the date that Adams was paroled from Texas custody and entered exclusive federal custody. Id.; see also [DE 13-9].

On July 31, 2017, Adams wrote to the federal sentencing court, explaining that he was “having trouble receiving the jail credit for my charge.” United States v. Adams, No. 6:13-cr-037-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. 2013) at ¶ 49. Adams further stated that: “You ordered it to be given to me, yet the Bureau of Prisons says your order only ‘recommends' that I receive it. The B.O.P. has denied it.” Id. Adams then requests that the Court issue an order directing that he receive jail credit for his time in custody from October 24, 2012, through January 26, 2014 (his entire time in custody prior to pleading guilty in his federal case). Id.

By this time, Judge Davis had retired and Adams's case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Ron Clark On November 8, 2017, Judge Clark denied Adams's motion, noting Judge Davis's recommendation that the BOP designate the state facility as the place of service of Adams's sentence (thereby making the sentence concurrent with Adams's imprisonment or future imprisonment pursuant to the judgment in Case No. 40, 144-A), but ultimately concluding that the BOP is responsible for determining the amount of time to be credited, stating that “the BOP will calculate this time as well as any other time to which defendant is entitled to receive as credit against each federal sentence.” Id. at ¶ 50. Judge Clark then construed Adams's motion as a motion to correct or reduce his sentence for arithmetical, technical, or other clear error and denied it as untimely. Id. Judge Clark also found that Adams's sentence was not the result of such an error, and further noted that “[t]he court no longer has the authority to amend the sentence, absent a motion by the Government.” Id.^[3] On May 2, 2019, Adams filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the calculation of his federal sentence in light of Judge Davis's recommendation at sentencing. See Adams v. United States, 6:19-cv-186-JDK-KNM (E.D. Texas 2019). On September 30, 2020, the District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommending denial of Adams's § 2255 motion because a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper vehicle through which a federal prisoner can seek credit for prior custody. Id. at ¶ 6; DE 7.

Adams has now filed a § 2241 habeas petition challenging the BOP's calculation of his sentence in this Court. In his § 2241 petition, Adams argues that he is entitled to credit towards his federal sentence for his entire time in state custody from October 24, 2012, through January 28, 2014. [DE 1, at 7].^[4] Adams points to Judge Davis's statements as sentencing and in the Judgment recommending that Adams's federal sentence be concurrent with his term of imprisonment in Case No. 40, 144-A (his 2010 Texas case) and that the BOP designate the Texas facility to be the place of service of his federal sentence. [DE 1, at 6; DE 1-2]. According to Adams, in light of these recommendations, he is entitled to credit towards his federal sentence for his entire time spent in state custody from October 24, 2012, through January 28, 2014.

However, after a thorough review of Adams's motion, Respondent's Response, and the documentation regarding Adams's federal and state sentences, the Court concludes that Adams is not entitled to relief. Thus, his § 2241 petition will be denied.

II.

A.

In response to Adams's § 2241 petition, Respondent first argues that Adams's petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his petition. It has long been the rule that, before a prisoner may seek habeas relief under § 2241, he must first fully exhaust his administrative remedies within the BOP. Fazzini v. Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, 473 F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2006); see also Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465, 466 (6th Cir. 2013); Leslie v. United States, 89 Fed.Appx. 960, 961 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is well established that federal prisoners are required to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing a habeas corpus petition under § 2241.”). Administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing suit and in full conformity with the agency's claims processing rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92-94 (2006).^[5]

According to Respondent, Adams has filed four administrative remedies related to the calculation of his sentence (Administrative Remedy Nos. 850753, 866594, 924692, and 947690), but only Administrative Remedy...