Fields v. Cartledge
ORDER allowing Fields until March 6, 2017 to file a supplemental memorandum of law addressing the issue of whether he is "in custody" pursuant to the sentence at issue such that he satisfies the jurisdictional requir ement of § 2254(a). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall have seven days to file a response to Fields's supplemental memorandum. (Supplemental memorandum due by 3/6/2017. Reply due by 3/13/2017.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 2/13/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Inmate Search Detail Report) (bgoo) Modified to edit text on 2/13/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
C/A No. 0:16-2463-TMC-PJG
Petitioner Anthony Fields, a self-represented state prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The respondent has filed a motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 12.) Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Fields
was advised of the summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if
he failed to respond adequately to the respondent’s motion. (ECF No. 13.) Fields filed a response
in opposition to the respondent’s motion (ECF No. 21), and the respondent filed a reply and a
supplemental reply (ECF Nos. 27 & 30). Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions and
the record in this case, the court is concerned that it may lack jurisdiction over this matter and
concludes that further briefing is required on the respondent’s motion for summary
judgment—specifically, whether Fields is “in custody” pursuant to the conviction challenged in the
instant Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
At issue in this Petition is Fields’s sentence in 1990 to ten years’ incarceration suspended
upon service of ninety days of shock probation. The sentence also included three years’ supervision
under the South Carolina Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services Board. (See ECF No. 11-3.) In
Page 1 of 2
his reply brief, the respondent argues that “[i]t is unclear that this sentence would not be considered
as served.” (Respt.’s Reply, ECF No. 27 at 3.) However, the court notes that the South Carolina
Department of Corrections’ website1 lists the sentences for the convictions at issue in the instant
Petition as “active.” (See Attach. at 1.) The “in custody” requirement for a federal habeas petition
is jurisdictional. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989); see also Lackawana Cty. Dist.
Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401 (2001).
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Fields shall have until March 6, 2017 to file a supplemental memorandum
of law addressing the issue of whether he is “in custody” pursuant to the sentence at issue such that
he satisfies the jurisdictional requirement of § 2254(a). It is further
ORDERED that the respondent shall have seven days to file a response to Fields’s
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
February 13, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
The court may take judicial notice of government websites. See Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l
Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that a court may “properly take judicial notice of
matters of public record”); Gasner v. Cty. of Dinwiddie, 162 F.R.D. 280, 282 (E.D. Va. 1995)
(permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents). The Inmate Search Detail
Report for Petitioner Fields is attached hereto. See http://public.doc.state.sc.us/scdc-public/ (search
by petitioner’s name, then select “00200592 Fields, Anthony”) (last visited February 13, 2017).
Page 2 of 2
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?