United States District Court, D. Maryland
EMMANUEL E. SEWELL Petitioner
DAYENA CORCORAN, LAURA Y. ARMSTEAD, Respondents
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Emmanuel Sewell filed an amended petition for writ of habeas
corpus in response to this court's order seeking
clarification as to whether he intended to file the petition
in this court or in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. ECF
No. 2. The amended petition is difficult to discern; however,
it appears that Sewell is seeking relief not available to him
in this court on a claim that does not state a federal cause
of action and the petition must be dismissed without
prejudice. Because he appears to be indigent, Sewell's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
“Statement of Origin” section of the form
petition Sewell states as follows:
The Dept. of Corr. Commitment and Disciplinary regulations
are unconstitutional and are (prejudice) being used against
petitioner/plaintiff in a unconstitutional manner. Putting me
under distress, duress, anxiety attacks because no-one
follows its own policy that has caused me multiple
hospitalizations, interfere with family relations, mail
tampering and people interfering with my release because I
stand against being extorted by Corr. Staff, Psychology, and
Muslims, BGF, Murder Inc., DMI, Bloods intimidation indirect
threats against me & family at NBCI, RCI, & Patuxent
ECF No. 3 at p. 7. As relief he seeks the appointment of
counsel, compensatory and punitive damages, and a preliminary
injunction “until permanent/mandatorily
released.” Id. He also seeks expungement of
his criminal and disciplinary records as well as “any
other relief to be granted under Americans with disabilities
Acts Title II-III §§ 504-506.” Further,
Sewell asks this court to order the Executive Director of the
Inmate Grievance Office (IGO) to restore all diminution of
confinement credits “and any other relief from
grievance filed with the court for liberal
construction.” Id. The relief sought suggests
that Sewell may be seeking to state a § 1983 claim and a
claim for mandamus relief, but falls short.
also provides numerous attachments to the petition including
an administrative remedy (ARP) appeal to the IGO indicating
that his sentence has “lawfully expired 17 yrs, 5
months ago.” ECF No. 3-1 at p. 2. He further argues
that “[t]here was no proper authority to revoke any of
my credits as state law states in Massey v. Secretary[,
]” 389 Md. 496, 500 (2005). Id. at p. 3.
Sewell maintains that his continued incarceration endangers
his life as he is subjected to harassment by both
correctional officers and inmates belonging to gangs.
to a response provided by the Warden to his ARP, Sewell lost
a total of 2, 273 diminution of confinement credits due to
guilty findings in prison disciplinary proceedings. ECF No.
3-1 at p. 8. On February 26, 2015, 1, 113 of those credits
were restored. Id. Sewell was advised that he could
only be considered for restoration of credits once during any
term of confinement. Id.
regard to Sewell's claim that the Division of Correction
(DOC) Disciplinary Procedures are without statutory
authority, he was advised in a memorandum dated December 22,
2008, by David Barthlow, Inmate Hearings Program Director,
[T]he 2006 Massey decision of the Maryland Court of
Appeals . . . found that the 105 directive series met
constitutional standards but that the [DOC] had failed to
meet standards from the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
in drafting those procedures. The court then stayed a
decision in the case and directed that the [DOC] comply with
the APA standards. The [DOC] then complied with the order by
the March, 2006 issuing of COMAR, Chapter 12.02.27 (Inmate
The current legal authority then for DCD 105-1 through DCD
105-11 is State regulations from Chapter 12.02.27 of COMAR.
ECF No. 3-3 at p. 1.
Massey, 389 Md. at 525, the Maryland Court of
Appeals held that the Secretary of the Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) did not have the
authority to adopt regulations pertaining solely to the
routine management of correctional facilities and directives
regarding inmate disciplinary proceedings had to be adopted
pursuant to Maryland's Administrative Procedure Act.
See also Md. St. Gov't., Code Ann. §§
10-101 through 10-117. The appellate court specifically
recognized that “the directives at issue were put into
place in order to comport with Federal due process
requirements, so simply declaring them immediately
ineffective and leaving nothing in their place is not an
option. That would bring prison disciplinary proceedings to a
halt.” Massey, 389 Md. at 525. In order to
allow the DPSCS correctly to implement the directives
governing inmate disciplinary proceedings, the court delayed
the issuance of its mandate and directed its ...