Ceasar v. United States

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Paula Xinis United States District Judge

         Pending is Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Jamal Ceasar's Petition to lift a federal warrant lodged as a detainer against him by the United States Parole Commission for violating the terms of his supervised release^[1] so that he may enter a state substance abuse treatment program. Ceasar also asks to be resentenced to six years or time served.^[2] ECF No. 1-2 at 4; ECF No. 7. The United States has responded and Caesar has replied. ECF Nos. 8, 9. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and determines that a hearing is not necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.2018). For the reasons to follow, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

         I. Background

         On May 11, 2007, Ceasar was sentenced in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to 60 months of imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release. See No. 2006 CF3 15558, ECF No. 7-1; ECF No. 7-2 at 1. He was released from confinement on December 2, 2010, to begin his five-year term of supervised release. ECF No. 7-2 at 1, 2.

         In 2013, while still on supervised release for the D.C. case, Ceasar was charged in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland with robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, first degree assault, second degree assault, use of a handgun in a crime of violence, theft, and other offenses. See Criminal Case CT130807B (Prince George's Cty.); http://www.marylandcase.org. (viewed Dec. 16, 2019).

         On December 16, 2013, the United States Parole Commission (USPC) requested a warrant for Ceasar's arrest, alleging that Petitioner violated the terms of his D.C. supervised release by committing armed robbery, use of a firearm by a felon, theft of less than $10, 000, first degree burglary, first degree assault and other violations. ECF Nos. 7-3, 7-4. The warrant was lodged as a detainer against Ceasar while he awaited trial in Prince George's County. ECF No. 7-4.

         On April 2, 2014, after trial in Prince George's County Circuit Court, Ceasar was found guilty of robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and theft under $1, 000. Criminal Case CT130807Bl (Prince George's Cty. September 12, 2014); http://www.marylandcase.org.^[3] On April 26, 2014, the Circuit Court ordered the Maryland Department of Health to evaluate Ceasar under Md. Code Health, General, Article 8-505 Id; see also ECF No. 2-2 at 1.

         On September 12, 2014, the Circuit court sentenced Ceasar on his robbery conviction (Count 2) for a period of 10 years, all but 5 years suspended. His sentence for theft less than $1, 000 (Count 8) merged with the robbery at Count 2. On the second count of robbery (Count 10), the court sentenced Caesar to 10 years served consecutively to Count 2, all but 5 years suspended. His sentence for theft of property or services (Count 15) merged with Count 10. As for conspiracy to commit armed robbery (Count 22), the court sentenced Caesar to 15 years, all but 10 years suspended, to be served consecutive to Counts 2 and 10. Additionally, he was sentenced to five-years' supervised probation. See http://www.marylandcase.org. On August 23, 2018, Prince George's County Circuit Court approved Ceasar for treatment in a Maryland Department of Health facility upon availability of a bed. ECF No. 2-3. CT130807Bl; http://www.marylandcase.org.

         On February 22, 2019, the USPC supplemented the arrest warrant to reflect that Ceasar was convicted of the offenses noted in the December 16, 2013 warrant. ECF No. 7-5. The USPC conducted a dispositional review of the detainer in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 2.213(b)^[4] and on February 25, 2019, declined to withdraw the detainer. ECF No. 7-5; ECF No. 7-6.

         II. Standard of Review

         The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). A complaint need only satisfy the standard of Rule 8(a), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). The complaint must do more than provide “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations omitted). At this stage, all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint must be considered as true, Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268, (1994), and all factual allegations must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)). Although a court should construe pleadings of self-represented litigants liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), legal conclusions or conclusory statements do not suffice, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         III. Discussion

         Ceasar requests that either the federal detainer against him be resolved or that he be permitted to enter the drug treatment program for which he was approved. ECF No. 1-2 at 4. He also seeks credit for time served since December 16, 2013 and a hearing. Id. In his Reply, Caesar also maintains that he has been denied classification as a minimum security inmate and consideration for certain prison jobs and housing due to the USPC detainer. ECF No. 8 at 9.

         More particularly as to the detainer, Caesar asserts that sometime in 2014, he filed “an interstate agreement form” asking for disposition but never received a reply.^[5] ECF No. 4 at 2-3 ¶ 3. Caesar further asserts that in November 2014, “for some reason or the other, Petitioner's VOP detainer was lifted, and he was reclassified to a ‘lower security' and [sic] made him more eligible for lower security jobs.” ECF No. 4 at 3 ¶4; ECF No. 8 at 2-3 ¶4. During this time, contends Caesar, the detainer was “lifted” to avoid the parties “hardship, ” and he became eligible for a drug treatment program for which he had a scheduled entry date until USPC supplemented the arrest warrant and the detainer was relodged. ECF No. 4 at 3 ¶ 4, 8; ECF No. 8 at 3 ¶4. Caesar argues that the relodging of the detainer was “deceitful” and ...