Smith v. Ormond
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Smith's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1 is DENIED. 2. The Court will enter a judgment contemporaneously with this order. 3. This matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 10/3/17. (MRS)cc: COR, Pro Se Filer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION at LONDON
Civil Action No. 6: 17-12-KKC
J. RAY ORMOND, Warden,
*** *** *** ***
Inmate Quincy Smith has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking credit against his federal sentence for time he spent in state
custody. [R. 1] This matter is before the Court to conduct an initial screening of Smith’s
petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545
(6th Cir. 2011). Because the credit Smith seeks is precluded by federal law, his petition must
On March 26, 2014, Smith was arrested by Arkansas police on drug and battery
charges, but was released on bond the same day. On April 10, 2014, officials from the
Arkansas Department of Corrections took Smith into custody on a probation violation. While
he was in state custody, a federal grand jury in Hot Springs, Arkansas issued an indictment
charging Smith with five counts of conspiracy to distribute and distribution of
methamphetamine. Smith was transferred into federal custody on July 21, 2014 pursuant
to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for his arraignment. [R. 1-2 at 3]
Smith remained in federal custody, reached a plea agreement with the government,
and on August 28, 2015, the federal court imposed a sentence of 84 months imprisonment.
On September 3, 2015, Smith was returned to the custody of Arkansas to complete service of
the state prison term imposed for violating the terms of his probation in an earlier case. On
November 25, 2015, Arkansas granted parole to Smith and he was transferred into the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to commence service of his federal sentence.
In April 2016 Smith filed a motion in the trial court requesting a clarification of his
sentence because the BOP had commenced his sentence on November 25, 2015, the day he
was transferred into federal custody to begin service of it. Smith contended that his federal
sentence should have been ordered to run concurrently with his state probation revocation
sentence because both sentences were based upon the same conduct. In the alternative, he
asked the trial court to order that he be given credit against his federal sentence starting on
the day he was taken into federal custody pursuant to the writ for his arraignment. The trial
court denied that motion in October 2016 on the ground that that Smith must seek such relief
in a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after exhausting his administrative
remedies within the BOP. United States v. Smith, No. 6: 14-CR-60019-SOH-1 (W.D. Ark.
In his petition, Smith states that he was taken into custody on April 10, 2014 for
violating the terms of a separate parole term, but that this parole was never revoked and
expired in September 2014. He therefore argues that the time he spent in state custody from
April 10, 2014 to November 25, 2015 should be applied against his federal sentence. [R. 1-1
As a preliminary matter, Smith’s present claim for prior custody credits pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) is entirely different than the one he raised using the BOP’s inmate
grievance program in which he sought a nunc pro tunc designation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3621(b). [R. 1-2 at 3] Smith’s petition is therefore subject to summary dismissal for failure
to exhaust his administrative remedies. Fazzini v. Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, 473
F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2006); Pruitt v. Holland, No. 10-CV-111-HRW, 2011 WL 13653, at *46 (E.D.Ky. Jan. 4, 2011).
Even if this were not so, Smith’s claim is without merit. Calculation of a prisoner’s
credits for time spent in custody before his federal sentence is imposed is determined by 18
U.S.C. § 3585(b). By its terms, § 3585(b) precludes granting pretrial credit if it has already
been counted against another sentence. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992).
As the BOP noted in its response to Smith’s grievance, the time period for which he sought
credit had already been applied by Arkansas to a probation revocation sentence, and hence
could not be applied to his federal sentence. [R. 1-1 at 3] The fact that Smith was subject to
a separate parole term that was not independently revoked is of no moment. Cf. McClain v.
Bureau of Prisons, 9 F. 3d 503 (6th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
Smith’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1] is DENIED.
The Court will enter a judgment contemporaneously with this order.
This matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket.
Dated October 3, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?