United States District Court, D. Maryland
JAMAL M. CEASAR, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES Respondent
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
...