Brooks v. The United States of America

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Order: The court ORDERS that Brooks's petition be, and is hereby, dismissed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 4/28/2017) (edm)

--·-·~-~-----::.-·.:;-,--~

'·> ;_
L~~ fEXAS
t

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT[COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEX~
FORT WORTH DIVISION

I

KENNETH DARRILL BROOKS,

BY-----,;,------Depuly

§
§

Petitioner,

APR 2 82017

§
§

vs.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

§
§
§

NO. 4:17-CV-286-A
(NO. 4:05-CR-195-A)

§

Respondent.

§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER

On April 3, 2017, Kenneth Darrill Brooks ("Brooks") filed a
document titled "Under Title 28

[sic] U.S.C. Section §3582(c)

Formal Petition Upon Seeking Sentence Modification With
Consideration for Eligibility Toward Earned 'Jail Time' Credit."
Having reviewed the petition, the court concludes that it should
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
I.

Screening Under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A
As a prisoner seeking redress from government officials,
Brooks's complaint is subject to preliminary screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th
Cir. 1998). Section 1915A(b) (1) provides for sua sponte dismissal
if the court finds that the complaint is either frivolous or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A claim
is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis in either fact or
law. •

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when,
assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true even
if doubtful in fact,

such allegations fail to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
In evaluating whether the complaint states a valid claim for
relief, the court construes the allegations of the complaint
favorably to the pleader. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501
(1975). However, the court does not accept conclusory allegations
or unwarranted deductions of fact as true, and a plaintiff must
provide more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555; Tuchman v. DSC Commc'ns Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067
(5th Cir. 1994).
II.

Analysis
Brooks petitioned the court for a modification of his
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C .

1

3582(c)', claiming that his

§

By order signed April 5, 20 I 7, the court indicated that it was treating Brooks's filing as a
(continued .. )
2

federal sentence should be reduced by fifteen months due to jail
time credit earned while serving a concurrent state sentence.
Nothing in Brooks's petition, however, indicates that he is
entitled to relief pursuant to§ 3582(c). Brooks has not alleged
sufficient facts showing that his sentence was based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission,

§

3582 (c) (2), or that modification of his

term of imprisonment is expressly permitted by statute or by Rule
35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

§

3582 (c) (1) (B).

Therefore,
The court ORDERS that Brooks's petition be, and is hereby,
dismissed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§

1915A for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.
SIGNED April 28, 2017.

/

United States

1
( •••

Di~lct

Judge

continued)
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 2241; however, after further consideration, the
court concludes that such tiling should be interpreted as a motion for sentence modification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

3