Hicks-Bey v. Walton et al

Filing 5

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud, granting 4 MOTION Permission to File an Addendum re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Rural Hicks-Bey. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS is DISMISSED with prejudice from this action. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Respondent J.S. Walton shall answer or otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 2/11/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RURAL HICKS-BEY, # 04171-000,
Petitioner,
vs.
J.S. WALTON and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-17-DRH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional
Institution at Marion, Illinois, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the execution of his sentence. Petitioner alleges that he
has not received education good time credits (“EGTC”) for coursework he
completed during his incarceration (Doc. 1). According to the petition, petitioner
is eligible to receive these credits pursuant to the District of Columbia Code.
Because he has not, petitioner’s mandatory release date is set for June 1, 2015
(Doc. 1, p. 18). Petitioner claims that he should be released in mid-2014.
This matter is now before the Court for review of the petition pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts,
which provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge,
“[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the

Page 1 of 6

petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules
gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases.
I.

THE HABEAS PETITION

According to the petition, the District of Columbia Superior Court
sentenced petitioner on May 23, 1991, to an eight year prison term, followed by
five years of probation, for a “carnal knowledge” conviction. Petitioner alleges that
he was subject to a prison term of 11 to 33 years for this offense (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Due to several parole violations following the discharge of his original sentence,
petitioner’s parole was repeatedly revoked, and his original sentence of 11 to 33
years was reinstated. Between 1992 and the date he filed this action, petitioner
was allegedly housed at Federal Correctional Institutions in Lorton, Virginia
(“Lorton”) (1992-95); Three Rivers, Texas (“Three Rivers”) (1995-97); 1 Pollock,
Louisiana (“Pollock”) (2002-07); Jesup, Georgia (“Jesup”) (2008); Marianna,
Florida (“Marianna”) (2008-10); and Marion, Illinois (“Marion”) (2010-present)
(Doc. 1, pp. 8-15).
Petitioner claims that he was entitled to receive EGTC for successfully
completing adult continuing education coursework during his incarceration at
each institution. The authority for EGTC is found in the District of Columbia
Good Time Credits Act, which, according to the petition, provides that “[e]very
person whose conduct complies with institution rules and who demonstrates a
desire for self-improvement by successfully completing an academic or vocational
1

Although petitioner was incarcerated at different times between 1998 and 2001, the
allegations in the Petition do not indicate where he was housed (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9).

Page 2 of 6

program . . . shall earn educational good time credits of no less than 3 days a
month and not more than 5 days a month” (Doc. 1, p. 18). These credits allegedly
reduce petitioner’s prison sentence.
Petitioner claims that he successfully completed coursework at Pollock and
Jesup without receiving EGTC from either institution (Doc. 1, p. 18). He first
discovered this when he reviewed a copy of his Sentence Monitoring Good Time
Data on July 30, 2012 (Doc. 1, pp. 11-12). Petitioner allegedly understood that
he could receive no more than five days per month of EGTC.

Even so, he

expected to receive credit for the following courses at Pollock: (1) Conversational
Spanish (July 8, 2002 – Sept. 16, 2002); (2) Drug Education (Dec. 9, 2002 – Mar.
7, 2003); (3) Legal Research (Jan. 8, 2003 – Apr. 2, 2003); (4) Constitutional Law
(Mar. 20, 2004 – May 8, 2004); (5) International Law (July 17, 2004 – Sept. 19,
2004); (6) International Law II (Oct. 9, 2004 – Dec. 18, 2004); (7) Small Business
(Aug. 31, 2006 – Dec. 7, 2006); and (8) Anger Management (Sept. 26, 2007 – Oct.
24, 2007) (Doc. 1, p. 11).

Petitioner also expected to receive EGTC for the

following educational courses that he completed at Jesup: (1) Real Estate (May
12, 2008 – July 28, 2008); and (2) Business Finance (Aug. 5, 2008 – Oct. 30,
2008) (Doc. 1, p. 11). Petitioner claims to have satisfied all other conditions for
receiving this credit.
Petitioner’s mandatory release date is presently set for June 1, 2015 (Doc.
1, p. 18).

He has a projected satisfactory release date of March 20, 2015.

However, petitioner claims that his release date should be set for mid-2014,

Page 3 of 6

based on the EGTC that he has earned and is allegedly entitled to receive.
Petitioner took numerous steps to exhaust his administrative remedies 2
prior to filing this action. Following several unsuccessful attempts to seek relief
(Doc. 1, p. 5), petitioner filed a Request for Administrative Remedy – Informal
Resolution (BP-8) on June 13, 2013 (Doc. 1, p. 6). He received an unsatisfactory
response on July 27, 2013. He then filed a Request for Administrative Remedy
Appeal (BP-9) on August 5, 2013, and received a final response on September 11,
2013. The same day, petitioner filed a Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal
(BP-10) and received a response on October 29, 2013. He then filed a Central
Office Administrative Remedy Appeal (BP-11) on October 30, 2013. As of the date
he filed this action, petitioner had received no response.
Petitioner has filed this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to
challenge the execution of his sentence. He seeks a credit of five days per month
for the educational programs he successfully completed at Pollock and Jesup, as
well as a corresponding adjustment of his release date to mid-2014 (Doc. 1, p.
19). He has named Marion’s warden, J. S. Walton (“Warden Walton”), and the
Federal Bureau of Prisons as Respondents (Doc. 1, p. 1).

2

The procedures for administrative resolution of inmate complaints are set forth in 28
C.F.R. § 542.10, et seq. An inmate must first “informally” present a complaint to staff for
resolution. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a). If the inmate is dissatisfied with the response, he
must file a BP-9 (Request for Administrative Remedy) seeking administrative review with
the warden within 20 days of the incident. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a). If the warden does
not satisfactorily resolve the grievance, the inmate has 20 days to file a BP-10 with the
Bureau of Prisons’ regional director. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). If the matter is not
resolved by the regional director's disposition, the final level of appeal is to the Bureau of
Prisons’ general counsel, where a BP-11 must be filed within 30 days. Id.; see also
Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2001).

Page 4 of 6

II.

DISCUSSION

Without commenting on the merits of petitioner’s claim, the Court
concludes that the petition survives preliminary review under Rule 4 and 1(b) of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts.
However, in a habeas corpus proceeding, an individual respondent who has the
authority to bring the petitioner before the Court must be named. This individual
is the prisoner’s custodian, i.e., the warden of the prison where the inmate is
confined. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442, 447 (2004); Kholyavskiy
v. Achim, 443 F.3d 946, 948-49 (7th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, petitioner shall be
allowed to proceed with his claim against Warden Walton, but the Federal Bureau
of Prisons shall be dismissed from this action with prejudice.
III.

PENDING MOTION

Petitioner has filed a Motion for Permission to File an Addendum (Doc. 4).
In the motion, petitioner seeks permission to add several exhibits to the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). The motion is GRANTED.
IV.

DISPOSITION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS is DISMISSED with prejudice from this action.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Respondent J.S. Walton shall answer or
otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered.

This

preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude the Government from
raising any objection or defense it may wish to present. Service upon the United

Page 5 of 6

States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St.
Louis, Illinois, shall constitute sufficient service.
IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this cause is
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.
IT IS ORDERED that this entire matter be REFERRED to a United States
Magistrate Judge for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and
28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties consent to such a referral.
Petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk (and
Respondent) informed of any change in his whereabouts during the pendency of
this action. This notification shall be done in writing and not later than seven (7)
days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to provide such
notice may result in dismissal of this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 11th day of February, 2014.

Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2014.02.11
14:00:55 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 6 of 6