United States District Court, D. Maryland
MICHAEL J. STUBBS, Petitioner
WARDEN TIMOTHY J. STEWART, Respondents
XINIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
J. Stubbs, is an inmate incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland
("FCI-Cumberland"). In this self-represented
petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, Stubbs challenges the Federal Bureau of
Prison's ("BOP") determination that he is
ineligible for early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(d)
upon the successful completion of the Residential Drug Abuse
Treatment Program ("RDAP"). ECF No. 1. As relief,
Stubbs asks that he be afforded one-year early release upon
his successful completion of RDAP. Id.
Warden Timothy Stewart ("Stewart") moves to dismiss
the complaint, or alternatively for summary judgment. ECF No.
4. Stubbs opposes the dispositive motion (ECF No. 6), and
Stewart has filed a reply. ECF No. 7. The case is ready for
disposition and the Court now rules pursuant to Local Rule
105.6 because a hearing is not necessary. Respondent's
motion, construed as one for summary judgment, IS GRANTED.
April 21, 1999, Stubbs was convicted by the State of Ohio of
two counts of robbery. ECF No. 4-2 at p. 6, ¶¶
13-14 (Zurovec Declaration). In August of 2002, Stubbs was
sentenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio to serve 140 months in federal
custody, followed by four years of supervised release, for a
violation of 18U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846
(conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine
base). ECF No. 4-2, ¶ 2; ECF No. 4-2 at p.
15-27; see United States v. Stubbs, No.
1:02-CR-40-14 (N.D. Ohio). Stubbs was placed on supervised
release on October 9, 2012, having been released from BOP
custody with good conduct credit. ECF No. 4-2, ¶ 2.
April 4, 2017, the district court revoked Stubbs'
supervised release terms based on Stubbs' commission of
new offenses in 2014. ECF No. 4-2, pp. 29-30. He was
sentenced to 48 months confinement and has a projected
release date of September 21, 2020. ECF No. 4-2, ¶ 2;
ECF No. 4-2, p. 30.
Stubbs has been serving his term on the supervised release
violation, BOP reviewed whether Stubbs' would be entitled
to a sentencing reduction were he to complete the RDAP
program. ECF No. 4-2 at ¶¶ 11, 14. The BOP
determined that Stubbs was precluded from early release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) because his state
robbery convictions, imposed in April of 1999, occurred
within 10 years of the original sentence for his 2002 drug
conviction. ECF No. 4-2 at ¶ 14; ECF 4-2 at p.
contends that the BOP erred in finding that the 1999 state
robbery convictions occurred within ten years from his
federal narcotics offense. More particularly, Stubbs argues
that because the robbery convictions occurred more than ten
years from the sentence imposed on his revocation of his
supervised release, he is entitled to the one-year reduction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) upon RDAP completion.
ECF No. 1 at p. 9-10. For the following reasons, the Court
cannot agree with Stubbs.
Standard of Review
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to federal habeas
corpus proceedings to the extent the Rules do not conflict
with any statutory provisions or the rules governing habeas
corpus proceedings. See R. 12, Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases. Additionally, if it plainly appears from
the petition and any attached exhibits that the Petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court, the petition
must be dismissed. Id. at Rule 4.
judgment is proper when the moving party demonstrates that
"no genuine dispute as to any material fact" exists
when construing all facts and all justifiable inferences in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a) & (c)(1)(A); see also Ricci v. De Stefano,
557 U.S. 557, 585-86 (2009); Baldwin v. City of
Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828, 833 (4th Cir. 2013). A mere
"scintilla of evidence" suggesting a material
dispute cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
251-52 (1986). Rather, the record evidence must demonstrate
that a reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the
nonmoving party. MatsushitaElec Indus Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
brings this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which
permits a prisoner to file suit against the BOP for "a
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Rose v.
Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). The pertinent federal
statute in this case, 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), authorizes
the BOP to implement drug abuse treatment programs such as
RDAP and permits possible early release upon successful RDAP
completion. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) (participant's
prison term "may be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons,
but such reduction may not be more than one year from the
term the prisoner must otherwise serve.").
3625 of the same Title expressly exempts from judicial review
BOP action as applied to "the making of any
determination, decision, or order under this
subchapter." 18 U.S.C. § 3625. See also Minotti
v. Whitehead,584 F.Supp.2d 750, 761 (D. Md. 2008)
(judicial review of any BOP "adjudication," defined
as a "retrospective particularized fact-finding for each
prisoner."). As part of BOP's broad decision-making
power, the agency "shall designate the place of the
prisoner's confinement." 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
See also Ingram v. Thomas, 2011 WL 1791234 at *2 (D.
Or. 2011). ...