Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

King-Ivor v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

United States District Court, D. Maryland

November 14, 2017

SAM KING-IVOR #162946 Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM

          Paula Xinis United States District Judge

         On October 23, 2017, this petition for habeas corpus was received for filing from Sam King-Ivor, a Maryland inmate currently housed at the Western Correctional Institution (“WCI”) in Cumberland, Maryland. King-Ivor takes issue with the manner in which the Maryland Parole Commission (“MPC”) and Department of Correction (“DOC”) have computed and carried out his sentences. Generously construing the petition, it appears that King-Ivor is stating that the MPC and DOC have failed to commence his sentences from the September 16, 1981 date imposed by a circuit court judge and this has affected his parole eligibility date.[1] ECF No. 1 at 7. He asks that his sentences run from September 16, 1981.

         King-Ivor seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), which shall be granted. As King-Ivor is challenging the execution of his sentences, his action shall be construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.[2]

         A habeas corpus petition, with its concomitant requirement of 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, 489-490 & 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 matter). 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 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982), 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). This total exhaustion rule promotes comity while not unreasonably impairing a prisoner's right to relief. Rose, 455 at 523.

         An inmate in DOC custody may challenge his sentence computation in one of two ways. First, an inmate may pursue administrative proceedings to challenge computation regardless of whether he believes he is entitled to immediate release 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 confined;
2. Appealing a denial of the request by the warden to the Commissioner;
3. Filing a complaint with the Inmate Grievance Office (“IGO");
4. Appealing a final decision of the IGO to the Circuit Court;
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.

         Alternatively, where an inmate seeks an immediate release, he can:

1. File a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a Circuit Court;
2. Appeal a decision by the Circuit Court to the Court of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.