United States District Court, D. Maryland
W. GRIMM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jordan Murphy, a federal inmate who was confined at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland at
the time he initiated this action,  filed this habeas action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that the Federal
Bureau of Prisons has failed to properly calculate his
sentence. ECF No. 1. Respondent Timothy S. Stewart,
Warden of FCI-Cumberland, through counsel, moves for
dismissal, or in the alternative, for summary judgment,
arguing that Murphy's sentence has been properly
calculated. ECF No. 5. Murphy has responded, as well as
sought leave to amend his petition. ECF No. 12. A hearing is
not needed to resolve the case. See Loc. Rule 105.6
(D. Md. 2016). Murphy's request to amend IS GRANTED, and
his allegations in his motion for leave to amend are accepted
as a supplement to his petition. Nonetheless, because the
undisputed evidence shows that Murphy's sentence was
calculated correctly, Respondent's motion, treated as one
for summary judgment, shall be granted and the petition shall
material facts are not in dispute. On January 10, 2012,
Murphy was arrested by Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
authorities on firearm charges. Johnson Aff. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 5-2; Johnson Aff. Exs., ECF No. 5-2, at 7 (Commonwealth
of Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas of Allegheny Cty. Docket Sheet for
Case No. CP-02-CR-2972-2012). He was sentenced on December
17, 2012, by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to
a 2-4 year term of confinement. Murphy Aff. & Supp. 2;
Johnson Aff. ¶ 5; Johnson Aff. Exs., ECF No. 5-2, at 23
(Order to Release on Parole).
8, 2013, while in the custody of Pennsylvania authorities
serving his state sentence, he was released temporarily to
the United States Marshal pursuant to a writ issued by the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania in Case Number 2:13-cr-00060-CB. Murphy Aff.
& Supp. 2, ECF No. 1-1; Johnson Aff. ¶ 6; Johnson
Aff. Exs., ECF No. 5-2, at 11 (Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad
Prosequendum); id. at 13 (USM-129 Individual
15, 2014,  he was sentenced by the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to a
100 month term of confinement "with credit for time
served on any federal detainer." Murphy Aff. & Supp.
2; Johnson Aff. Exs., ECF No. 5-2, at 16-17. The judgment
specified that the sentence was to run consecutive to
Murphy's Pennsylvania state sentence, which he was
serving under Allegheny County docket number 02-CR-0002972 at
that time. Johnson Aff. Exs., ECF No. 5-2, at 17. After his
federal sentencing, Murphy was returned to Pennsylvania
authorities. Johnson Aff. ¶ 8; Johnson Aff. Exs., ECF
No. 5-2, at 14.
received credit toward his state sentence for the time he
spent on the federal writ. Johnson Aff. Exs., ECF No. 5-2, at
13-14; id. at 25 (email dated August 16, 2016
between BOP and State of Pennsylvania). Pennsylvania granted
Murphy parole to his federal detainer on April 13, 2015.
Murphy Aff. & Supp. 2; Johnson Aff. ¶ 9; Johnson
Aff. Exs., ECF No. 5-2, at 23 (Order to Release on Parole).
He remained in state custody until April 17, 2015, when he
was released to the U.S. Marshals pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585(a) for service of his federal sentence. Johnson
Aff. ¶ 9; Johnson Aff. Exs., ECF No. 5-2, at 14.
federal sentence has been computed by the BOP as commencing
on April 17, 2015, the date he was received into exclusive
federal custody. Johnson Aff. ¶ 10; Johnson Aff. Exs.,
ECF No. 5-2, at 27-28 (SENTRY Sentence Monitoring Computation
Data). He has been credited for prior custody from April 14,
2015 (the day after he completed his state sentence) to April
16, 2016 (the day before his federal sentence commenced).
Johnson Aff. ¶ 10; Johnson Aff. Exs., ECF No. 5-2, at
I have considered Respondent's exhibits in support of his
motion, which include public records, as well as an affidavit
and email correspondence. Johnson Aff. & Exs., ECF No.
5-2. "If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) . . ., matters
outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by
the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary
judgment under Rule 56." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). Summary
judgment is proper when the moving party demonstrates,
through "particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . .,
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials,"
that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), (c)(1)(A); see Baldwin v.
City of Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828, 833 (4th Cir. 2013).
If the party seeking summary judgment demonstrates that there
is no evidence to support the nonmoving party's case, the
burden shifts to the nonmoving party to identify evidence
that shows that a genuine dispute exists as to material
facts. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 & n.10 (1986). The
existence of only a "scintilla of evidence" is not
enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
Instead, the evidentiary materials submitted must show facts
from which the finder of fact reasonably could find for the
party opposing summary judgment. Id.
a district court sentences a federal offender, the Attorney
General, through the BOP, has the responsibility for
administering the sentence." United States v.
Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992) (citing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(a)); see also United States v. Stroud,
584 Fed.Appx. 159, 160 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding Attorney
General, through the BOP, responsible for computing
sentencing credit for time in detention prior to sentencing).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a), "[a] sentence to a term
of imprisonment commences on the date the defendant is
received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives
voluntarily to commence service of sentence at, the official
detention facility at which the sentence is to be
served." If there is no clear intent by the sentencing
judge to make a term of confinement concurrent with another
sentence, the sentence is consecutive to any sentence already
imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584 ("Multiple
terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run
consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to
3585(b) governs credit for time spent in custody before the
sentence begins. It provides:
A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a
term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official
detention prior to ...