Letts v. Johns

Filing 9

ORDER directing Respondent to respond to the undersigned's queries within twenty days of this Order. Letts shall then have a period of twenty days to file any desired responsive pleading. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 11/20/2014. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS DIVISION

SEATON H. LETTS,
Petitioner,
vs.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV514-061

T. JOHNS, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER
Presently before the Court is Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the
alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. Respondent seeks the dismissal of
Petitioner Seaton Lefts' ('Letts") petition for writ of habeas corpus, which Lefts filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent asserts that the petition is barred by the
successive writ rule of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Lefts alleges in this petition that he was
only given credit against his federal sentence for two years' time instead of the four and
one-half years to which he is entitled. (Doc. No. 1, p. 7). Respondent contends that
Lefts previously filed a section 2241 petition in the District of South Carolina and sought
credit against his federal sentence for time served from November 25, 2004, through
December 14, 2006. Respondent also contends that the South Carolina court
dismissed Lefts' petition, as moot, because the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") had credited
this time against his federal sentence.

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

Section 2244, Title 28 of the United States Code provides:
No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a
writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to
a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of
such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United
States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus, except as
provided in section 2255.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). "For a § 2241 petition to be barred as successive under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(a), the same claims must have been raised and adjudicated on the merits in the
petitioner's prior habeas proceedings." Watson v. United States, 392 F. App'x 737, 742
(11th Cir. 2010) (citing Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 444 n.6 (1986)). Any "new"
claims raised in a section 2241 petition which could have been raised in a previous
petition should be dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Glumb v. Honsted, 891 F.2d 872,
873 (11th Cir. 1990).
In his previously-filed section 2241 petition, Lefts claimed that he was entitled to
credit against his federal sentence for prior custody from November 25, 2004, through
December 14, 2006. Lefts asserted that he was not requesting credit from November
25, 2004, through August 14, 2009, as the BOP noted. (Case No. 1:12-cv-00731-MGL,
Doc. No. 1-1) (0. S.C.). A magistrate judge in South Carolina determined that the BOP
had credited Lefts with the "appropriate additional jail credit[

1"

and recommended that

Lefts' petition be "deemed moot." ( Id. at Doc. No. 35, p. 5). A district court judge
adopted this recommendation as the opinion of the court. (Ld. at Doc. No. 37).
Respondent's Motion fails to address certain issues which would allow the
undersigned to make the proper recommended disposition of this matter. First, the
undersigned has doubts as to whether the South Carolina court's disposition of Lefts'
previously-filed § 2241 petition was decided on the merits, and thus whether this petition

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/32)

1

2

is procedurally barred by § 2244(a). Clas v. Tories, 549 F. App'x 922, 923 (11th Cii.
2013) A moot case or claim must be dismissed because rnootness is jurisdictional,
and a decision on the merits of a moot issue or case would constitute an impermissible
advisory opinion."), citing Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 315 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002). Secondly, the undersigned wonders
whether, if Lefts' petition is not barred under § 2244(a), his petition nevertheless should
be barred as an abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. Glurnb, 891 F.2d at 873. Further,
if Letts' petition is not procedurally barred, Respondent should provide a response
discussing the relative merits of the petition. In addition, Respondent cites to several
exhibits and other pleadings in the Motion which have not been submitted to the Court,
which raises the question of whether Respondent inadvertently failed to attach these
documents to the Motion or whether these pleadings were cited inadvertently.
Respondent is directed to respond to the undersigned's queries within twenty
(20) days of this Order. Lefts shall then have a period of twenty (20) days to file any
desired responsive pleading.

SO ORDERED, this

day of November, 2014.

IiIES E. GRAHAM
ITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

3