Boykins v. Warden, FCI Petersburg VA Medium

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction of the Respondent. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court should certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous. Objections to R&R due by 8/25/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/7/2014. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
LEO BOYKINS, III
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:14-cv-255
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

ERIC D. WILSON, Warden,
:
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner Leo Boykins, III, brought this habeas corpus action pro se pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 to obtain relief with respect to two state court cases in the Dayton Municipal
Court: State v. Boykins, Case No. 2009 TRD 011748, and State v. Boykins, Case No. 2011 TRT
003135.
In the 2009 case, Boykins was convicted on his plea of guilty of driving without a valid
license on June 26, 2009. He was fined $125 plus court costs and companion charges of driving
under suspension, failure to reinstate driver’s license, and improper display of license plates were
dismissed. When Boykins failed to pay the fine and costs in accordance with the agreed
payment plan, a warrant was issued and sent to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to block issuance
of a new license.
In the 2011 case, Boykins was charged with driving without a seatbelt. He failed to
appear for initial appearance and a capias warrant was issued for his arrest on March 18, 2011.
Boykins asserts that he should receive jail time credit for time served regarding these two

1

cases because he was house “at the county detention for nearly a year, which Montgomery
County refused to arrest him for these offenses.” (Petition, Doc. No. 2, PageID 18.) He requests
“time served for nearly a year that can and should be credited for those offenses which he is now
serving a five (5) year sentence.” Id. As relief he requests that the warrants or detainers in those
two cases be dismissed.
Petitioner is in the custody of Respondent, the Warden of the Federal Correctional Center
at Petersburg, Virginia, as the result of a Judgment and Commitment Order of this Court in Case
No. 3:12-cr-121. Boykins is serving a sixty-month sentence upon his conviction on a plea of
guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin (Doc. No. 78 in 3:12cr-121).
Boykins understandably sued his current custodian, Warden Wilson.

However, 28

U.S.C. § 2241 only gives District Judges authority to issue the writ “within their respective
jurisdictions.” This Court therefore does not have authority to issue the writ to Warden Wilson.
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004).
The proper respondent within this judicial district would be the Dayton Municipal Court,
the court in which both of the referenced cases against Mr. Boykins were filed. See Braden v.
30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 to issue the writ to the Dayton Municipal Court.
Rather than dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction over the Respondent, the Magistrate
Judge proposed to substitute the Dayton Municipal Court as Respondent and contacted City of
Dayton Chief Prosecutor Stephanie Cook to determine if she would object on behalf of the Court
to the substitution. Rather than proceed in that manner, Prosecutor Cook obtained from the
Dayton Municipal Court dismissals of both of those cases. Certified copies of the disposition

2

entries, signed by Senior Magistrate Collette Moorman, are attached. The seatbelt charge was
withdrawn at the request of the Prosecutor (“WDROP” in the dismissal entry) because of
Boykins’ present confinement. In the no driver’s license case, the case was terminated for time
served and the balance of fines and costs suspended.
By virtue of the dismissals, there is no longer any process outstanding from the Dayton
Municipal Court which can act as a detainer on Petitioner. While this case is not technically
moot because there was still a warrant outstanding in 2011 traffic case when this case was filed,
Petitioner has now received all the relief he sought1.
As a formal matter, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition be dismissed without
prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction of the Respondent. Because reasonable jurists would
not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and
the Court should certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous.

August 7, 2014.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
1

To the extent the Petition can be read as seeking jail time credit against his federal sentence for time spent in jail,
Boykins is not entitled to such credit based on the Dayton Municipal Court cases. Boykins was ordered detained in
his federal criminal case by Magistrate Judge Michael Newman on September 28, 2012. Whether Boykins is
entitled to jail time credit based on the detention order is not before this Court in the present case and must be
presented first to the Bureau of Prisons.

3

P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

Copies:

The Honorable Collette Moorman
City Prosecutor Stephanie Cook
Warden Eric Wilson

4