Lee v. Quay

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 filed by Michael A. Lee (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 9/8/21. (ma)

Case 1:21-cv-00952-SHR-EB Document 25 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL A. LEE,
Petitioner
v.
H. QUAY,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:21-cv-952
(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM
On May 26, 2021, pro se Petitioner Michael A. Lee (“Petitioner”), who is
currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Canaan (“USP Canaan”) in
Waymart, Pennsylvania, initiated the above-captioned action by filing a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner
challenges the decision of a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) who found him
guilty of a violation of Code 208: destroying, altering, interfering with, improperly
using, or damaging any security device, mechanism, or procedure. (Id.) Petitioner
paid the requisite filing fee on June 10, 2021. (Doc. No. 7.) Following an Order to
show cause (Doc. No. 8) and an extension of time (Doc. Nos. 13, 14), Respondent
filed a suggestion of mootness, arguing that Petitioner’s petition is moot because the
incident report in question has been expunged from his record (Doc. No. 16).
After receiving an extension of time to do so (Doc. Nos. 17, 18), Petitioner
filed his traverse on August 17, 2021 (Doc. No. 19). Petitioner has also filed a
“motion to voluntarily dismiss/withdraw ground four without prejudice.” (Doc. No.

Case 1:21-cv-00952-SHR-EB Document 25 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 8

10.) In an Order dated August 17, 2021, the Court directed Respondent to file a
response addressing Petitioner’s traverse within seven (7) days. (Doc. No. 20.)
After receiving an extension of time to do so (Doc. Nos. 21, 22), Respondent filed
his response on September 7, 2021 (Doc. No. 24). Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is,
therefore, ripe for disposition.
I.

BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2002, the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of North Carolina sentenced Petitioner to a total of 420 months’ imprisonment for
one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five (5)
kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty (50) grams or more of crack, and one count
of use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. (Doc. No. 241 at 2.) Specifically, the court sentenced Petitioner to 360 months on the first count
and a consecutive 60-month term on the firearm count. (Id.) On September 10,
2009, the court issued an Order granting Petitioner a sentence reduction, reducing
Petitioner’s 360 months to 324 months. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner’s consecutive 60-month
term remained the same. (Id.)
On May 27, 2014, the court issued a second amended judgment further
reducing Petitioner’s 324 months to 262 months. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner’s consecutive
60-month sentence remained the same. (Id.) The court stated that “[i]f the amount
of time the defendant has already served exceeds this sentence, the sentence is
2

Case 1:21-cv-00952-SHR-EB Document 25 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 8

reduced to a ‘Time Served’ sentence, subject to an additional period of up to ten (10)
days for administrative purposes of releasing the defendant.” (Id. at 21.) On
September 23, 2020, the court again reduced Petitioner’s sentence, reducing his 262
months to 202 months. (Id. at 23.) Petitioner’s 60-month consecutive sentence
remained the same. (Id.) The court noted that Petitioner’s total sentence was 262
months, and that “[i]f the amount of time the defendant has already served exceeds
this sentence, the sentence is reduced to a ‘Time Served’ sentence, subject to an
additional period of up to ten (10) days for administrative purposes of releasing the
defendant.” (Id.)
On April 30, 2020, while incarcerated at FCI Berlin, Petitioner appeared
before the DHO on a charge that he had violated Code 208: destroying, altering,
interfering with, improperly using, or damaging any security device, mechanism, or
procedure. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 8.) The DHO found Petitioner guilty of the offense and
imposed the following sanctions: (1) disallowance of 27 days of good conduct time
(“GCT”); (2) forfeiture of 27 days of non-vested GCT; and (3) loss of email
privileges for four (4) months. (Id. at 9-10.)
In his § 2241 petition, Petitioner asserts that his Fifth Amendment due process
rights were violated for the following reasons: (1) the DHO and staff representative
refused to call another staff member as a witness despite Petitioner’s request that
they do so; (2) the DHO falsely stated that the staff witness elected not to comment;
3

Case 1:21-cv-00952-SHR-EB Document 25 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 8

and (3) the DHO found him guilty of a non-existent offense. (Doc. No. 1 at 6-7.)
Petitioner also raises a fourth claim for relief, arguing that he received a sentence
reduction on September 24, 2020 and that he has served all time on his one sentence.
(Id. at 8.) He avers that when the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) recalculated his GCT
losses, they improperly calculated his sentence by applying such losses to the
sentence that was already completed. (Id.) As relief, Petitioner seeks expungement
of this Incident Report and restoration of his GCT. (Id.) He also seeks recalculation
of his GCT losses after April 2016 and requests that such recalculation be applied to
his consecutive sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Id.)
Petitioner has also filed a “motion to voluntarily dismiss/withdraw ground
four without prejudice.” (Doc. No. 10.) Petitioner seeks to withdraw his fourth
ground for relief, regarding his sentence calculation, without prejudice to his right
to refile it once he has exhausted his administrative remedies. (Id.) However,
Petitioner asserts his sentencing calculation argument in his traverse (Doc. No. 19),
and Respondent has addressed it (Doc. No. 24). The Court, therefore, will address
his argument below and deny his “motion to voluntarily dismiss/withdraw ground
four without prejudice” (Doc. No. 10) as moot.

4

Case 1:21-cv-00952-SHR-EB Document 25 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 8

II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Petitioner’s Due Process Challenge to Incident Report #3381615

The case or controversy requirement of Article III requires that parties
continue to have a “personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Cont’l
Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7
(1998). Therefore, a case should be dismissed as moot where “developments occur
during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the
outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief.”
Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Blanciak
v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996)).
The exhibits attached to Respondent’s response indicate that on June 23, 2021,
the incident report in question, Incident Report #3381615, was expunged from
Petitioner’s disciplinary record. (Doc. No. 16-1 at 3; Doc. No. 24-1 at 40-42.) A
review of Petitioner’s disciplinary record, which Respondent has included, indicates
that this report no longer appears therein. (Doc. No. 16-1 at 4-20; Doc. No. 24-1 at
40-42.) Moreover, the record indicates that Petitioner’s GCT (54 days) will be
restored and his sentence computation recalculated. (Id. at 3.) Because Petitioner
has received the relief he seeks, his claims regarding this Incident Report are moot
because no legal injury remains for this Court to remedy. See Marine v. Quintana,

5

Case 1:21-cv-00952-SHR-EB Document 25 Filed 09/08/21 Page 6 of 8

347 F. App’x 736, 737 (3d Cir. 2009); Randall v. Martinez, No. 4:07-cv-2151, 2008
WL 275721, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2008).
B.

Claim Regarding Sentence Calculation

In his § 2254 petition and traverse, Petitioner suggests that the BOP has
miscalculated his sentence by taking disallowed GCT from a sentence that has
already been final. (Doc. Nos 1, 19.) According to Petitioner, all disallowed GCT
must be allowed to his only active sentence, which he asserts is the consecutive
sentence for the firearms charge. (Id.) Petitioner believes that the BOP has forfeited
at least 190 days of “GCT too many.” (Doc. No. 19 at 6.)
Consecutive “terms of imprisonment . . . shall be treated for administrative
purposes as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(c).
Thus, in Petitioner’s case, the BOP “has aggregated [his] 202-month term and 60month consecutive term as a single aggregate 262-month term of confinement.”
(Doc. No. 24 -1 at 31.) Petitioner’s sentence commenced on March 20, 2002. (Id.)
He received prior custody credit toward his sentence for the following periods of
time: April 26, 200 through May 4, 2000; January 29, 2001 through January 30,
2001; July 3, 2001 through July 5, 2001: and September 20, 2001 through March 19,
2002. (Id.) His projected release date is April 5, 2022. (Id. at 32.)
As noted above, Petitioner suggests that the BOP has forfeited too much GCT
and that he is entitled to earlier release. The award of GCT is
6

Case 1:21-cv-00952-SHR-EB Document 25 Filed 09/08/21 Page 7 of 8

subject to determination by the [BOP[ that, during that year, the
prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional
disciplinary regulations . . . . [I] the BOP determines that, during that
year, the prisoner has not satisfactorily complied with such institutional
regulations, the prisoner shall receive no such credit toward service of
the prisoner’s sentence or shall receive such lesser credit as the [BOP]
determines to be appropriate.
18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). An inmate may receive up to 54 days of GCT “for each
year of the prisoner’s sentence imposed by the court.” Id. “[A]ll earned GCT for
the year, or years, preceding the current or final partial year, is available for forfeiture
throughout service of the sentence. Some or all GCT earned during the current or
final partial year may be disallowed (not forfeited).” (Doc. No. 24-1 at 37.)
Respondent maintains that Petitioner’s “262-month term earns a total of 1,179
days of GCT credit, as provided by § 3624(b).” (Doc. No. 24 at 5.) The record,
however, indicates that Petitioner has been subject to multiple disciplinary sanctions
throughout the course of his imprisonment. (Doc. No. 24-1 at 40-42.) As a result,
a total of 720 days of GCT have been disallowed and/or forfeited by the BOP. (Id.
at 44.) Thus, Petitioner’s current total earned and projected amount is 459 days of
GCT credit. (Id.) With Petitioner’s 262-month aggregate term commencing on
March 20, 2002, and the application of 195 days of prior custody credit and projected
earnings of 459 days of GCT, the BOP has correctly calculated Petitioner’s projected
release date to be April 5, 2022. Given that the BOP has aggregated Petitioner’s
sentences for administrative purposes, Petitioner has provided nothing to suggest
7

Case 1:21-cv-00952-SHR-EB Document 25 Filed 09/08/21 Page 8 of 8

that the BOP is applying any forfeited and/or disallowed GCT to a sentence that has
already become final. The Court, therefore, discerns no error with respect to the
BOP’s calculation of Petitioner’s sentence, and Petitioner is not entitled to habeas
relief with respect to this claim.
III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) will be denied. His “motion to voluntarily
dismiss/withdraw ground four without prejudice” (Doc. No. 10) will be denied as
moot. An appropriate Order follows.
s/ Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: September 8, 2021

8