Gibbins v. Robey

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM: For the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum, the Court denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus. cc: Petitioner (pro se), Respondent, Atty General-Comm of KY (JM)

Case 3:21-cv-00407-BJB Document 3 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
GERALD GIBBINS

PETITIONER

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-407-BJB

AMY ROBEY, WARDEN

RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Gerald Gibbins, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Luther Luckett Correctional
Complex, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition is
before the Court on preliminary review to determine whether “it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4,
Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases (applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)). For
the following reasons, the Court dismisses the petition on preliminary review.
I.
Petitioner was convicted in Whitley Circuit Court in 1994 for murder and first-degree
robbery. DN 1 at 1. He states that he was sentenced to 30 years for murder and 20 years for
robbery. Id. at 7. Attachments to his petition show that prison officials and the state court
consider him to have been sentenced to 50 years. DN 1-2 at 1, 26. He asserts that his continued
detention is “unlawful” because he has completed his sentence. He challenges the failure of the
Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC) “to accurately calculate my sentencing and the
time I have served, with Statutory Goodtime and Meritorious GT.” DN 1 at 3. He requests this
Court to order KDOC to “make an accurate calculation of the sentence and expiration dates,
apply the Statutory good time I am entitled to, [] apply the correct laws that apply to my
sentences, and to have me released accordingly from any unlawfully applied detention[.]”

Case 3:21-cv-00407-BJB Document 3 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 56

The petition makes only one reference to federal law: Petitioner asserts that his allegedly
unlawful detention violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 7. The
memorandum in support of his petition (DN 1-1) does not mention the Eighth Amendment or
other federal law. It identifies the following sections of the Kentucky Revised Statutes as the
controlling law in this case: Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 439.3401, 532.060, and 532.110(1)(c). Petitioner
argues that KDOC officials incorrectly used a different state statute, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.120, to
calculate his sentence. Attachments to the petition show that Petitioner also disagrees with
KDOC officials regarding how good time credits were credited to him under state law.
II.
Federal habeas relief can be granted only if Petitioner demonstrates that he is confined
“in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” § 2241(c)(3);
§ 2254(a)(1). Here, except for one reference to the Eighth Amendment in his petition, Petitioner
focuses only on why he believes that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has incorrectly calculated
his sentence under Kentucky law.
“A state court’s alleged misinterpretation of state sentencing guidelines and crediting
statutes is a matter of state concern only.” Howard v. White, 76 F. App’x 52, 53 (6th Cir. 2003)
(§ 2254 case). Significantly, federal habeas corpus relief is not available for alleged violations of
state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“[I]t is not the province of a
federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”). “[A] state
court’s interpretation of state law is binding on a federal habeas court.” Parker v. Palmer,
No. 17-2057, 2018 WL 1014265, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 20, 2018) (citing Bradshaw v. Richey, 546
U.S. 74, 76 (2005)).

2

Case 3:21-cv-00407-BJB Document 3 Filed 11/18/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 57

Recently, in Henson v. Hart, the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
considered a case similar to this lawsuit, although brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 instead
of § 2241. No. 6:19-CV-247-HRW, 2020 WL 4577706 (E.D. Ky. June 12, 2020), report and
recommendation adopted, No. CV 19-247-HRW, 2020 WL 4572912 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 7, 2020).
In Henson, a Kentucky prisoner challenged the calculation of his sentence, contending that he
had completed his sentence and should be released. Id. at *1. The Eastern District of Kentucky
found that the petitioner in that case did not present a cognizable habeas claim because his claim
was solely that his sentence was calculated in violation of state law, not that he was in custody in
violation of the Constitution or federal law. Id. at 2.
Another recent decision in the Western District examined a similar petition brought under
§ 2241. Carpenter v. Hart, No. 5:20-CV-107-TBR-LLK, 2021 WL 2546739 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31,
2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:20-CV-00107-TBR, 2021 WL 2546720
(W.D. Ky. June 21, 2021). In Carpenter, like in Henson, the petitioner claimed that his sentence
was miscalculated under Kentucky law. This Court found that, even if Carpenter’s claims based
on state law were meritorious, he had not alleged a constitutional violation because alleged
misinterpretation or misapplication of state sentencing law “is a matter of state concern only.”
Id. at *3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, Petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas claim because the substance of his
claim is that his sentence has been incorrectly calculated under state law. Petitioner’s single
reference to the Eighth Amendment is not sufficient to bring this case within the purview of the
Constitution. See, e.g., Rayner v. Lee, No. 3:18-CV-01103, 2020 WL 58610, at *5 (M.D. Tenn.
Jan. 6, 2020) (“Despite nominal references to federal constitutional protections, a federal habeas
petition that challenges sentencing determinations under state sentencing laws or guidelines is a

3

Case 3:21-cv-00407-BJB Document 3 Filed 11/18/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 58

matter of state concern only and not a cognizable basis for federal review.”). This Court finds
that the petition must be denied.
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before Petitioner may appeal this Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability (COA)
must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A COA may issue “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).
“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, . . . [t]he
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of
the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Because jurists of reason
could not find this ruling debatable or wrong, a COA is not warranted.
The Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion.
Date: November 18, 2021

cc:

Petitioner, pro se
Respondent
Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Office of Criminal Appeals, 1024 Capital Center Drive,
Frankfort, KY 40601
B213.009

4