Ferguson v. Stewart
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 2/24/2017. (c/m 2/27/17)(kr2, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BRYAN FERGUSON, #59527-060
WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART,
Civil Action No. JKB-16-1424
Pending is Bryan Ferguson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent Timothy
Stewart, Warden at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Cumberland, Maryland, has
filed an unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Petition or for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 8. 1 A
hearing is unnecessary to resolve the issues presented. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For
reasons to follow, the court finds the petition is moot and will grant respondent’s motion for
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is rendered “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). It is the responsibility of the party seeking summary judgment to inform the court of the
basis for the motion and to identify the parts of the record that demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
“[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a
summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.” Id. at 324 (internal quotation
marks omitted). When the motion is properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond
Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d. 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Ferguson, who is self-represented, was notified
that he was entitled to file an opposition response, with supporting materials. He has chosen not to respond.
the pleadings and, by citing affidavits or ‘“depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id.
(quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and 56(e) (1986)).
Respondent has submitted a declaration from Robert Jennings, Management Analyst,
Designation and Sentence Computation Center. ECF No. 8, attachments 3-10. Additionally,
respondent relies on documents attached to the Jennings declaration. ECF No. 8-2- ECF No. 88. In light of these submissions, the following facts are established for purposes of the motion
for summary judgment.
Ferguson is a federal inmate incarcerated at FCI Cumberland, Maryland. He filed this
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to request credit toward his federal sentence for jail time
that he alleges was awarded to him by a judge in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. See ECF 1 (Petition). Ferguson claims his federal
sentence and the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) sentence computation do not reflect this award. Id.
Notably, Ferguson does not state in the petition the time period for which he should be credited,
but when he sought jail time credit through the BOP administrative remedy process, he indicated
the dates to be credited were from February 18, 2014, to April 24, 2014. ECF No. 8-1 n. 1; ECF
No. 8-10 at 4. Since Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies only as to these dates,
respondent and this court shall assume that he is requesting jail time credit from February 18,
2014, to April 24, 2014.
Respondent asserts Ferguson has been awarded all prior custody credit to which he is
entitled and therefore his claim is moot.
Respondent indicates that jail time credit for
February 18 to April 24, 2014, has been applied to Ferguson’s sentence.
On January 22, 2014, Ferguson was sentenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio to a 51-month term of imprisonment. ECF No. 8-5. The Court
continued Petitioner's bond, and released him on supervision pending notification by the U.S.
Marshals to surrender voluntarily to begin service of his federal sentence. See ECF No. 8-2,
ECF No. 8-6.
While Petitioner was on supervision, he was arrested on February 18, 2014, by the
Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Police Department on charges of discharging a firearm in a
habitation, in case number 2013-CRA-039487. On February 20, 2014, the Ohio court revoked
Petitioner's bond in case numbers CR-10-535801-A, CR-13-571475-A, and CR-14-582790-A.
On February 20, 2014, bond was set in case number 2013-CRA-039487, and Ferguson was
transferred to the custody of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Sheriff’s Department for a bond violation
hearing and pending charges. ECF No. 8-7.
On February 20, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
revoked Petitioner's federal bond, and the U.S. Marshals placed their warrant and judgment as a
detainer with the Cuyahoga County Jail, Cleveland, Ohio. ECF No. 8.
On April 25, 2014, Petitioner was released to the "exclusive" custody of federal
authorities to begin his federal sentence. ECF No. 8-4, ECF No. 8-5.
The BOP prepared a sentence computation with a 51-month term of imprisonment
commencing on April 25, 2014, and applied prior custody credit from December 23, 2012,
through December 24, 2012; October 9, 2013; October 29, 2013, to November 8, 2013; and
February 18, 2014, through April 24, 2014. ECF No. 8-5 at p. 4.
On May 6, 2014, while Ferguson was in Federal custody, the State of Ohio sentenced him
to a 51-month term of imprisonment in case number CR-14-582790-A, a 36-month term of
imprisonment in case number CR-13-571475-A, and an 18-month term of imprisonment in case
number CR-10-535801-A, with credit for 68 days of jail credit from October 29, 2013, through
November 8, 2013, and from February 21, 2014, through April 18, 2014. The State Court
ordered all terms to run concurrent to each other and to the sentence imposed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in case number 1:13-CR-441-001. ECF No. 8-7.
On August 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
reduced Ferguson’s term of imprisonment to a term of 41-months pursuant to the amended
sentencing guidelines. ECF No. 8-9.
Ferguson's federal sentence computation was updated to apply a total of 80 days prior
custody credits from December 23, 2012, through December 24, 2012, October 9, 2013,
October 29, 2013, through November 8, 2013, and February 18, 2014, through April 24, 2014.
Ferguson's federal sentence commenced April 25, 2014. If he receives all good conduct time, his
projected release date is February 4, 2017. ECF No. 8-5.
Petitioner filed an administrative remedy with the Bureau of Prisons asking for jail credit
from February 21, 2014, through April 18, 2014. Initially, his administrative remedy was
denied, because it was believed that these dates were awarded toward his state sentence, and
were not applicable toward his federal sentence pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). ECF
No. 8-2 ¶ 10; ECF No. 8-5; ECF No. 8-10. However, upon follow up with the State of Ohio, no
calculation of jail credit or sentence was done and will not be done until Ferguson returns to state
custody. Therefore, the BOP credited February 21, 2014, through April 18, 2014, to Petitioner's
federal sentence. ECF No. 8-2 ¶¶ 9, 10; ECF No. 8-5.
When calculating a sentence, the BOP determines the date the sentence commenced and
then decides if the inmate is eligible for any jail time credit. Prior custody is governed by 18
U.S.C. § 3585(b), which states:
A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term
of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to
the date the sentence commences (1) as a result of the offense for
which the sentence was imposed; or (2) as a result of any other charge
for which the defendant was arrested after the commission of the
offense for which the sentence was imposed; that has not been credited
against another sentence.
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (emphasis added).
As discussed above, the BOP contacted the State of Ohio and learned that no calculation
of jail credit or sentence was done and will not be done until Ferguson arrives back into state
The BOP therefore recalculated Ferguson’s federal sentence to allow credit for
February 21, 2014, through April 18, 2014. ECF 8-2 ¶ 10; ECF No. 8-5; ECF No. 8-10. The
BOP has updated Ferguson’s federal sentence to apply a total of 80 days of prior custody credits
from December 23, 2012, through December 24, 2012, October 9, 2013, October 29, 2013,
through November 8, 2013, and February 18, 2014, through April 24, 2014. ECF 8-2 ¶ 9.
A habeas corpus petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy
under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution.” Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690, 691 (10th Cir.
1998) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). No case or controversy exists unless
the petitioner has suffered an actual injury that can “‘be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.’” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477
(1990)). Because the BOP has credited Ferguson for his jail time credits, the petition is moot
and respondent’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A certificate of appealability will not issue without “a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional
claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.
2001). Ferguson has not made the requisite showing, and a certificate of appealability shall
For these reasons, respondent’s motion for summary judgment will be granted. The
court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A separate order follows.
Feb. 24, 2017
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
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?