Fulford-El v. Sgt. Fowler et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 10/14/2020. (c/m 10/14/2020 bas, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:20-cv-00245-GLR Document 5 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ERROL D. FULFORD-EL,
Petitioner,

*
*

v

*

SGT. FOWLER, and
MS. GERMOSEN,

Civil Action No.GLR-20-245

*
*

Respondents.
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 28, 2020, Petitioner Errol D. Fulford-El filed this Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus challenging his continued confinement in the Prince George’s County
Detention Center. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that he was sentenced on October 22,
2019 and is eligible for parole. (Pet. at 7, ECF No. 1). He states that Respondents have
denied him access to parole and access to good time credits. (Id.). Specifically, he states
that he is “missing” 70 days’ worth of diminution of confinement credits. (Id.). He alleges
that Sgt. Fowler has denied him access to grievances. Fulford-El asks to have a parole
hearing and to be credited for 60 days toward his sentence. (Id.).
Respondents Sgt. Fowler and Ms. Germosen (“Respondents”) filed a Response on
March 9, 2020. (ECF No. 4). Respondents argue that Fulford-El has received all of the
credit toward his sentence which he was entitled and that he was released from
incarceration at the Detention Center on March 5, 2020. (Id.). After reviewing these papers,
the Court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing. See R. Govern. § 2254 Cases U.S. Dist.

Case 1:20-cv-00245-GLR Document 5 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 3

Ct. 9(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) (2018). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
deny the Petition and decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
On October 22, 2019, Fulford-El began to serve an eighteen-month sentence entered
by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in Case No. CT190161X. (Resp. Pet. at
5, ECF No. 4). On February 27, 2019, the Prince George’s County Detention Center
prepared a “Projected Release Date” form, which, after applying all appropriate credits to
Fulford-El’s sentence, projected his release date as March 5, 2020. (Id. at 5–7). Fulford-El
was released from the Prince George’s County Detention Center on March 5, 2020. (Id. at
6).
“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)). “This case-or-controversy
requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.”
Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477–78 (1990). The parties must continue to
have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit. Id. at 478 (quoting Los Angeles v.
Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)). “This means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff
‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and
likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting
Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).
As Petitioner has received all of the relief he could receive through his Petition and
faces no collateral consequences from the claims alleged, the matter is now moot. See
Quarterman v. Young, No. CAE-18-1461, 2020 WL 3442841 (S.D.W.Va. 2020) (holding
2

Case 1:20-cv-00245-GLR Document 5 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 3

that as Petitioner did not challenge his conviction or raise a substantive challenge to the
legality of his sentence, but rather challenged only the calculation of his sentence, his
release rendered his habeas claim moot); Dickerson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. ICB10-1363, 2013 WL 6388738 (S.D.W.Va. 2013) (holding Petitioner’s assertion that he was
entitled to prior custody credit for state custody was rendered moot by release).
When a district court dismisses a habeas petition, a certificate of appealability 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). When a district court dismisses a habeas petition solely on
procedural grounds, a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating “(1) that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773 (2017). Because
Petitioner fails to satisfy this standard, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability. 1
A separate Order follows.

10/14/2020
Date

/s/
George L. Russell III
United States District Judge

1

Denial of a certificate of appealability in the district court does not preclude
Petitioner from requesting a certificate of appealability from the appellate court.
3