Lesiak v. Bayliss

1

JACOB ALEXANDER LESIAK, Petitioner, v. MELISSA BAYLISS, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-21 (GROH)

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg

April 24, 2023

AMENDED ^[1] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF AND DENY PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

ROBERT W. TRUMBLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 3, 2023, the pro se Petitioner, a federal inmate who is incarcerated^[2]at Morgantown FCI in Morgantown, West Virginia, filed the above-styled habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1.^[3] As relief Petitioner seeks an order directing the BOP to calculate and apply time credit to which he claims he is entitled, and to grant Petitioner immediate release to home confinement, and release to supervised release on July 2, 2024. ECF No. 1-1 at 1, 17. On February 13, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and expedited relief. ECF No. 6. On March 1, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion requesting expedited consideration of his petition, and for declaratory relief. ECF No. 12.

The matter is now before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR PL P 2. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the District Court deny Petitioner's request for injunctive relief and that the petition be denied and dismissed without prejudice, and Petitioner's request for declaratory relief be terminated as moot.

II. PROCECURAL HISTORY

A. Conviction and Sentence in the Northern District of Ohio^[4]

On August 29, 2018, an indictment was returned in the Northern District of Ohio, case number 1:18-CR-513, which charged Petitioner and several co-defendants with conspiracy and money laundering. ECF No. 1. On October 17, 2019, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to Counts 1 and 6 of the indictment, pursuant to a plea agreement. ECF Nos. 192, 264, 276; see also unnumbered docket entry dated October 17, 2019. On March 16, 2020,^[5] Petitioner was sentenced to 68 months for each count, with those sentences to be served concurrently with one another, followed by three years of supervised release for each count, also to be served concurrently with one another.^[6] ECF Nos. 264, 277.

B. Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Petitioner appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 30, 2020. ECF No. 269. None of the issues raised in direct appeal related to issues raised in this § 2241 proceeding. By order entered on April 6, 2021, the Sixth Circuit in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the judgment of the district court.

C. Instant Habeas Corpus Proceedings

On February 3, 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with a memorandum of law, and a number of exhibits in support thereof. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1 through 1-26. The petition alleges that Petitioner's time credits under the First Step Act have been improperly calculated. ECF No. 1 at 1.

The undersigned issued a Notice of Deficient Pleading and Intent to Dismiss on February 7, 2023, because Petitioner failed to complete the Court-approved form in accordance with the Local Rules of Prisoner Litigation Procedure (“Local Rules” or “LR PL P”). ECF No. 4. Further, the Notice advised Petitioner that failure to refile the Court-approved form, properly completed in accordance with the Local Rules, could result in dismissal of Petitioner's action within 30 days. Id. The packet of Court-approved forms for filing a petition for habeas corpus under § 2241 was sent to Petitioner along with the Notice. ECF No. 4-1.

On February 13, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion and memorandum for a preliminary injunction, which asserts that Respondent is “obligated to calculate Petitioner's [First Step Act] Time Credits and his Projected Release Date [ ], and as a consequence is obligated to transfer Petitioner to Prerelease Custody on February 22, 2023.” ECF No. 6 at 1. Among other relief, Petitioner requests that the Court issue an injunction which requires the Respondent to confirm Petitioner's PATTERN^[7] score, and projected release date, and transfer Petitioner to home confinement. Id. at 5. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause on February 13, 2023, the same date Petitioner's motion for injunctive relief was filed. ECF No. 7.

On February 23, 2023, Respondent filed a response to the Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 10. Respondent contends that: (1) Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, which denies this Court of subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of Petitioner's claims [ECF No. 10 at 4 - 9]; (2) Petitioner is not entitled to a preliminary injunction because he cannot meet the first prong of the Winter test, that he is likely to succeed on the merits [Id. at 9 - 11]; and (3) Petitioner is not eligible to apply for additional time credits under the First Step Act [Id. at 11 - 14].

Petitioner then filed a motion to expedite his 2241 proceeding and motion for declaratory relief pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 57, along with a memorandum in support thereof on March 1, 2023. ECF Nos. 12, 12-1. On March 7, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion to excuse excess pages, and to excuse errors in his 2241 petition. ECF No. 13. On March 31, 2023, Petitioner refiled the Court-approved form. ECF No. 14. On that same date, Petitioner also filed a motion to excuse delay, and motion for leave to file excess pages. ECF Nos. 15, 16.

In the court-approved form Petitioner asserts three grounds for relief: (1) that Petitioner's PATTERN score was incorrectly calculated, resulting in a medium risk score [ECF No. 14 at 5]; (2) the BOP has failed to comply with federal statutes by refusing to grant Petitioner First Step Act Earned Time Credit rate of 15 days for every 30 days of participation [Id. at 6]; and (3) BOP has failed to update Petitioner's projected release date to include his Earned Time Credit under the FSA [Id.]. Petitioner contends that he has filed BP-8, BP-9, and BP-10, administrative remedies, all of which were denied. Id. at 7. For relief, Petitioner requests that the Court order the BOP to: (1) correct his PATTERN score, and to credit Petitioner with all credit for EBRR [Evidence Based Recidivism Reduction] programs; (2) calculate his First Step Act Earned Time Credits, that will result in 680 days of ETC; and (3) to release Petitioner to home confinement effective February 22, 2023. Id. at 8.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Review of Petitions for Relief

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Court's Local Rules of Prisoner Litigation Procedure, this Court is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. This Court is charged with screening Petitioner's case to determine if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts; see also Rule 1(b) Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (a district court may apply these rules to a habeas corpus petition not filed pursuant to § 2254).

B. Pro Se Litigants.

Courts must read pro se allegations in a liberal fashion and hold those pro se pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court is required to perform a judicial review of certain suits brought by prisoners and must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded by statute). The Supreme Court in Neitzke recognized that:

Section 1915(d)^[8] is designed largely to discourage the filing

of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. To this end, the statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.

490 U.S. at 327.

C. Post-Conviction Remedies and Relief Including Habeas Corpus Petitions Filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

Prisoners seeking to challenge the validity of their convictions or their sentences are required to proceed under § 2255 in the district court of conviction. By contrast, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to § 2241, is intended to address the execution of a sentence, rather than its validity, and is to be filed in the district where the prisoner is incarcerated. “As we noted in O'Brien [v. Moore, 395 F.3d 499, 505 (4th Cir. 2005)], the ‘essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody' and ‘the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.'” Obando-Segura v. Garland, 999 F.3d 190, 194 (4th Cir. 2021), quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S 475, 484, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Accordingly, a petition filed pursuant to § 2241 is the appropriate method for a prisoner to challenge the fact and length of his...