United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. Bredar United States District Judge
April 27, 2017, Anthony Eley, an inmate confined at the
Eastern Correctional Institution, filed a letter with the
court, in which he appears to take issue with the loss of
diminution and street credits occurring as a result of the
revocation of his parole. Eley states that in August of 2016,
his parole was violated and revoked on technical rule
violations and he lost over 900 days of street credits. He
claims, however, that the day before his February 22, 2017,
release date, he was informed that 1, 787 days of diminution
credits and 567 days of street credits had also been revoked.
Eley contends that he was punished twice for the same parole
violation, violating his rights under the Double Jeopardy
Clause. He seeks advice from the court as to what
course of action to take. The letter was construed as a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition.
habeas corpus petition, with its concomitant requirement of
the exhaustion of state court remedies, is the exclusive
means for a person "in custody" to attack the fact
or duration of his confinement. See Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90 & 500 (1973) (state
prisoner's civil rights action for injunctive relief
seeking restoration of good time credits lost due to
disciplinary proceeding should proceed as habeas corpus
law is clear that a state prisoner must exhaust available
state court remedies as to each and every ground upon which
he claims entitlement to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973); Dickerson v.
Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987); Rose
v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A total exhaustion rule
promotes comity and such a rule does not unreasonably impair
a prisoner's right to relief. Rose, 455 at U.S.
inmate in the custody of the Maryland Division of Correction
(“DOC”) who wishes to seek the award of
diminution credits has two possible avenues for relief.
Regardless of whether he believes he is entitled to an
immediate release, an inmate may seek the restoration of his
or her lost credits via administrative proceedings by
1. 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
2. Appealing a denial of the request by the warden to the
3. Filing a complaint with the Inmate Grievance Office
(“IGO”); U.S.C. § 2241 is used to challenge
the execution of a sentence. Id. at 811; see
McIntosh, 115 F.3d at 811-12 (A challenge to the validity of
an inmate's conviction and sentence should be brought
under § 2254, while an attack on the execution [length
and duration] of his sentence is properly brought pursuant to
§ 2241); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.
4. Appealing a final decision of the IGO to the Circuit
5. Filing an application for leave to appeal to the Court of
Special Appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court; and
6. If the Court of Special Appeals grants the
application for leave to appeal, but denies relief on the
merits, seeking certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
inmate claiming an entitlement to an immediate release can
also seek relief directly from the state courts by
1. Filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a Circuit
2. Appealing a decision by the Circuit Court to the Court of