United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Tyrell Davron Anderson, a Maryland Division of Correction
(DOC) prisoner presently confined at the Maryland
Correctional Training Center (MCTC), filed a “Writ of
Mandamus” seeking release from incarceration on October
25, 2016. Petitioner alleges he is entitled to
immediate release because DOC officials have miscalculated
the number of diminution credits to which he is entitled.
(ECF No. 1 at pp. 1-2). He also requests money damages for
each day held in confinement after October 21, 2016, and
alleges that the delay in his release is impacting his
ability to obtain medical treatment for cancer.
October 31, 2016, the court received a typewritten paper
titled “Writ of Mandamus” which contains the same
allegations of miscalculation of diminution credits. The
typewritten version was erroneously opened as a new civil
rights complaint. See Civil Action No. DKC-16-3603.
In light of the foregoing, the Clerk will be directed to
docket the typewritten version in Civil Action No. DKC
16-3551 as a supplemental petition and Civil Action No.
DKC-16-3603 will be closed.
this court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over the claim,
petition and supplement instead shall be construed as
petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241,  and shall be dismissed without prejudice
for lack of exhaustion.
claims he has not been given five days of industrial credit
for each month he worked a sanitation detail, leading to
improper calculation of his release date. The petition and
supplement contain no indication that Petitioner has
successfully challenged the alleged miscalculation in the
Maryland courts. Absent exhaustion, the action is subject to
dismissal. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973).
prisoner challenging the way the Division of Correction is
calculating his sentence computation has two possible avenues
for relief in the state courts. First, regardless of whether
he believes he is entitled to an immediate release, a
prisoner may challenge the calculation of his sentences
and/or diminution credits through administrative proceedings
by: filing a request under the administrative remedy
procedure, Division of Correction Directive 185-001 et
seq., to the warden of the institution where he is
confined; appealing a denial of the request by the warden to
the Commissioner; filing a complaint with the Inmate
Grievance Office, (“IGO”); appealing a final
decision of the IGO to the Circuit Court; and if necessary,
filing an application for leave to appeal to the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland from the decision of the Circuit
Court. If the Court of Special Appeals grants the application
for leave to appeal, but denies relief on the merits, the
prisoner must also seek permission to appeal to the Court of
Appeals of Maryland.
prisoner claiming an entitlement to an immediate release can
also seek relief bypassing administrative remedies and
proceeding directly to the state courts by filing a petition
for writ of habeas corpus in a Circuit Court. If unsuccessful,
the prisoner may appeal the Circuit Court decision to the
Court of Special Appeals and thereafter may seek permission for
further review from the Court of Appeals.
exhaustion of state court remedies, the prisoner may seek
habeas corpus relief for constitutional claims in federal
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, using forms
available from the Clerk of Court. At that time he may also
seek damages for any harm caused by miscalculation of his
term of confinement. At present, however, this court does not
have jurisdiction to consider a claim for damages emanating
from the time to be served following revocation of
Plaintiff's parole and his sentence calculation based on
his subsequent conviction and sentence on other charges. In
light of this fact, the complaint must be dismissed without
has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court's
denial of his habeas corpus request. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c) (1). A certificate of appealability
(“COA”) may issue “only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” Id. at § 2253(c)
(2). When a district court dismisses a habeas petition solely
on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will
not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both
“(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right' and (2) ‘that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.'” Rouse v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684
(4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. Daniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000)). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate
entitlement to a COA in the instant case.
by separate order which follows, the case will be dismissed
without prejudice as unexhausted. The Clerk will be directed
to provide Petitioner with the appropriate 28 U.S.C. §
2241 forms so that he may return to this court after
completion of state court review.
 Petitioner failed to pay the civil
filing fee or submit a motion and affidavit in support of
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As the case is
subject to dismissal, Petitioner shall not be required to
correct this deficiency.
 Petitioner submits a blood work report
in support of his claim that he has cancer. (ECF No. 1-1).
The report does not state a cancer diagnosis.
Petitioner's civil rights action alleging a failure to
treat and diagnose breast cancer is pending. See Anderson