Wilkins v. Parrish

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM filed. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 2/2/2015. (c/m 2/2/15)(kr, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

RALPH EDWARD WILKINS
Plaintiff,
v.
CARROLL A. PARRISH
Defendant.

*
*

CIVIL ACTION NO. WMN-15-256

*
*****
MEMORANDUM

On January 28, 2015, Ralph Wilkins (“Wilkins”), an inmate housed at the Brockbridge
Correctional Facility, filed the above-captioned unsigned matter on civil rights forms. Wilkins
claims that educational credits seemingly earned from 1976 to 1978 at the former Maryland House
of Correction and educational, vocational, work, and special projects credits earned from 1978 to
1981 at the Patuxent Institution were not awarded to him. He seeks the award of those diminution
credits or, in the alternative, damages in compensation for the work activity involved. ECF No. 1 at
pg. 4.
Wilkins seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Inasmuch as Wilkins is
primarily seeking the award of diminution credits, which would go to the execution of his sentence
his action shall be construed as a Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

1

When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment,
and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from
that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
500 (1973); McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (“A habeas corpus
proceeding attacks the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement and seeks the remedy of immediate release
or a shortened period of confinement.”). A petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 is used to challenge the validity of a state court conviction, while a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is used to challenge the execution of a sentence. Id. at 811; see McIntosh,
115 F.3d at 811–12 (A challenge to the validity of an inmate's conviction and sentence should be brought
under § 2254, while an attack on the execution [length and duration] of his sentence is properly brought
pursuant to § 2241); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).

For the reasons that follow, the indigency motion shall be denied2 and the Petition shall be dismissed
without prejudice.
A habeas corpus petition, with its concomitant requirement of the exhaustion of state court
remedies, is the exclusive means for a person "in custody" to attack the fact or duration of his
confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-490 & 500 (1973) (holding that state
prisoner's civil rights action for injunctive relief seeking restoration of good time credits lost due to
disciplinary proceeding should proceed as habeas corpus matter).
Federal law is clear that a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies as to
each and every ground upon which he claims entitlement to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U. S. 484, 490-91 (1973); Dickerson v.
Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A total
exhaustion rule promotes comity and such a rule does not unreasonably impair a prisoner's right to
relief. Rose, 455 U.S. at 523.
An inmate in the custody of the Maryland Division of Correction (“DOC”) who wishes to
seek the award of diminution credits has two possible avenues for relief. Regardless of whether he
believes he is entitled to an immediate release, an inmate may seek the restoration of his or her lost
credits via administrative proceedings by:
1.

Filing a request under the administrative remedy procedure,
Division of Correction Directive 185-001, et seq., to the
warden of the institution where he is confined;

2

The indigency motion and attachments show that as of January 12, 2015, Wilkins has an
account balance of $106.10. Under Local Rule 112.1.d. (D. Md. 2011), the Court will generally not authorize
a petitioner who has $25.00 or more available after payment of the $5.00 fee to proceed in forma pauperis.

2

2.

Appealing a denial of the request by the warden to the
Commissioner;

3.

Filing a complaint with the Inmate Grievance Office (AIGO@);

4.

Appealing a final decision of the IGO to the Circuit Court;

5.

Filing an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Special
Appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court; and

6.

If the Court of Special Appeals grants the application for leave to
appeal, but denies relief on the merits, seeking certiorari to the Court
of Appeals.

An inmate claiming an entitlement to an immediate release can also seek relief directly from
the state courts by:
1.

Filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a Circuit Court;

2.

Appealing a decision by the Circuit Court to the Court of Special
Appeals;3 and

3.

Seeking certiorari to the Court of Appeals from a decision by the
Court of Special Appeals.

A review of the cause of action reveals that Wilkins has not exhausted the administrative
remedy procedure process in the DOC. Further, both the cause of action and the state court docket
(Maryland Judiciary Case indices)4 show that no habeas corpus petition was received for filing in the
state court. Thus, Wilkins has not exhausted his state court remedies as to his issue. His action

3

Although at one time, this court interpreted Maryland law as not permitting an appeal of a
Circuit Court decision denying habeas corpus relief except in very limited circumstances, see Chavis v. Smith,
834 F. Supp. 153, 158 (D. Md. 1993), later decisions by the Court of Appeals of Maryland have made it clear
that there is a right of appeal in cases where state habeas corpus relief has been sought challenging the
calculation of sentences and/or diminution credits. See Frost v. State, 647 A.2d 106, 109 n.5 (Md. 1994).
4

See http://www.casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry.

3

must be dismissed for the failure to exhaust available state court remedies. See Braden, 410 U. S. at
490-91. A separate Order follows.

Date: February 2, 2015

_________/s/__________________
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge

4