United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Toomer filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his confinement at Roxbury
Correctional Institution. ECF No. 1. Respondent moves to
dismiss the petition on the basis that Toomer failed to
exhaust his claim in state court prior to instituting this
case. ECF No. 6. Petitioner has replied. ECF No. 9. For the
reasons to follow, the petition will be DENIED and DISMISSED
a State inmate, indicates that Maryland Division of
Correction employees have failed to apply the correct number
of diminution of confinement credits toward his term of
confinement and have failed to compute his sentence
properly. ECF No. 1.
was committed to the custody of the Commissioner of
Correction by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on January
9, 2017, in case number 104268054. ECF No. 6-1. He was
sentenced to serve two concurrent 12 year terms of
confinement, both beginning on November 19, 2008, for the
“execution for previously suspended sentence[s] after
[Petitioner] was found in violation of probation.”
Id. The result of the proceeding was a term of
confinement with a start date of November 19, 2008, and a
maximum expiration date of November 19, 2020. See
Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 3-701-(2)(i) (defining
term of confinement as “the period from the first day
of the sentences that begins first through the last day of
the sentence that ends last, for. . . concurrent
sentences”); Md. Code Regs. 12.02.06.01(B)(12)
(defining maximum expiration date as “the date that an
inmate's term of confinement expires”); see
also ECF No. 6-2 (sentence calculation worksheet).
was sentenced by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to a 40
year term of confinement with all but 12 years suspended on
January 11, 2017, in case number 111196014. ECF No. 6-3. The
sentence was to commence on May 27, 2011, and to run
concurrent to any other outstanding sentences. Id.
As a result of this sentence, Petitioner's maximum
expiration date was extended to May 27, 2023. ECF No. 6-2;
Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 3-701-(2)(ii) (defining
term of confinement as “the period from the first day
of the sentence that begins first through the last day of the
sentence that ends last, for . . . partially concurrent
to Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. §§ 3-701-711,
Petitioner has been awarded 1, 224 diminution of confinement
credits. ECF No. 6-5. After subtracting the diminution
credits from Petitioner's May 27, 2023 maximum expiration
date, Petitioner's anticipated mandatory supervision
release date is January 17, 2020. Id. at p.
has filed neither a petition for writ of habeas corpus in any
Maryland circuit court nor a grievance regarding his claim
with the Inmate Grievance Office. ECF No. 1.
Petitioner has presented a federal question here, his
petition is subject to the exhaustion requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b), which applies to petitions filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Francis v.
Henderson, 425 U.S. 536, 538 (1976) (“This Court
has long recognized that in some circumstances considerations
of comity and concerns for the orderly administration of
criminal justice require a federal court to forgo the
exercise of its habeas corpus power.”); see also
Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525, 531 (4th Cir. 2010)
(applying exhaustion requirements to § 2241 petition
challenging civil commitment). Thus, before seeking federal
habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must exhaust each claim
presented by pursuing remedies available in state court.
See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521 (1982). Each
claim must be fairly presented to the state courts; this
means presenting both the operative facts and controlling
legal principles. See Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d
276, 289 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Exhaustion
includes appellate review in the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland and, where appropriate, the Court of Appeals of
Maryland. See Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129,
134-35 (1987). The state courts must be afforded the first
opportunity to review federal constitutional challenges to
state convictions in order to preserve the role of the state
courts in protecting federally guaranteed rights. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491 (1973).
may challenge the calculation of his term of confinement by
pursuing both administrative and judicial remedies. He may
file a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Office. See
generally Adamson v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 753 A.2d
501 (Md. 2000); Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. § 10-206(a).
If the grievance is not found wholly lacking in merit on its
face, it is referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings
(“OAH”) for a hearing before an administrative
law judge. Id. at § 10-207(c). An order of the
OAH finding that an inmate's complaint is lacking in
merit constitutes the final decision of the Secretary of
Public Safety and Correctional Services
(“Secretary”) for purposes of judicial review.
Id. at § 10-209(b)(1)(ii). If the OAH finds
that the grievance is meritorious, an order is forwarded to
the Secretary. The Secretary may affirm, reverse, or modify
the order of the OAH. Id. at § 10-209(c).
appeal of the Secretary's decision lies with the
“circuit court of the county in which the complainant
is confined.” Id. at § 10-210(b)(2).
Petitioner may thereafter seek review in the Court of Special
Appeals of Maryland by application for leave to appeal,
id. at § 10-210(c)(2), and, if the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland grants the application for leave
to appeal but denies relief on the merits, he may then seek
review in the Court of Appeals of Maryland by petition for
writ of certiorari. See Williams v. State,
438 A.2d 1301 (Md. 1981); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.
Proc. § 12-202.
a prisoner who “alleges entitlement to immediate
release and makes a colorable claim that he or she has served
the entire sentence less any mandatory [diminution]
credits” may seek relief directly from Maryland courts
by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Maryland
House of Corr. v. Fields, 703 A.2d 167, 175 (Md. 1997)
(abrogated on other grounds by Moats v. Scott, 751
A.2d 462 (Md. 2000)). The inmate may appeal a circuit
court's decision denying habeas corpus relief to the
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland and may thereafter seek
certiorari in the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
See generally Stouffer v. Pearson, 887 A.2d 623 (Md.
2005); Stouffer v. Staton, 833 A.2d 33 (Md. 2003);
Jones v. Filbert, 843 A.2d 908 (Md.App. 2004).
is no indication that Petitioner has made any effort to
exhaust his administrative or state judicial remedies. This
court may not entertain the issues presented in the petition
while the Maryland courts ...