Perkins v. Saad
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING RESPONDENT'S 14 MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The petitioner's 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. It is ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 12/4/17. (Pro Se Petitioner via CM/rrr; counsel via CM/ECF) (lmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (lmm).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
RANDALL K. PERKINS,
Civil Action No. 5:16CV182
JENNIFER SAAD, Warden,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The pro se1 petitioner, Randall K. Perkins, filed a petition
for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241”).
petition for habeas corpus, the petitioner challenges the manner in
which the Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”) calculated his federal
The action was referred to United States Magistrate
magistrate judge entered an order to show cause directing the
respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted.
“Pro se” describes a person who represents himself in a court
proceeding without the assistance of a lawyer.
Dictionary 1416 (10th ed. 2014).
Thereafter, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in
the alternative, motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge
issued a Roseboro2 notice to the petitioner, but the petitioner did
not file a response to the respondent’s motion.
judge then filed a report and recommendation recommending that this
alternative, motion for summary judgment and deny and dismiss with
prejudice the § 2241 petition.
The magistrate judge informed the
parties that if they objected to any portion of the report and
recommendation, they were required to file written objections
within 14 days after being served with copies of the report.
Neither party filed objections.
In May 2008, the pro se petitioner was incarcerated at the
Whitley County Detention Center in Kentucky.
The petitioner had
been arrested and jailed after an individual cooperating with state
law enforcement authorities purchased methamphetamine from him.
cooperating witness who had purchased the methamphetamine from him.
Federal authorities then brought murder for hire charges against
the petitioner and borrowed him from state custody, pursuant to a
federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, from July 28, 2008,
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975).
through July 17, 2009.
On July 16, 2009, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sentenced the
petitioner to 92 months in prison, but did not specifically address
whether the petitioner’s federal sentence would run concurrently or
consecutively with his Commonwealth of Kentucky sentence.
On March 1, 2012, the petitioner was released from state
custody on parole and delivered into federal custody to serve his
The BOP computed the petitioner’s 92-month
federal sentence to begin on March 1, 2012, and did not give the
petitioner credit for the time he was subject to the federal writ.
The petitioner began the administrate grievance process on May 31,
interpreted the petitioner’s request for additional credit as a
request for a nunc pro tunc3 designation as a result of the ruling
under Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990). Accordingly,
the BOP conducted a retroactive designation review to determine
whether the petitioner’s federal sentence should be deemed to have
started concurrently with his underlying state sentence.
December 12, 2016, the BOP denied the petitioner’s request for
In his petition, the petitioner contends that the BOP failed
to award him credit for the time he was in federal custody from
“Nunc pro tunc” describes a doctrine that permits acts to be
done after the time they should have been done with a retroactive
effect. Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
about July 28, 2008, to July 17, 2009.
He alleges that he was a
pretrial state detainee during that period and did not receive
state credit for that period.
For relief, the petitioner requests
jail credit plus “gain time credit” for the period from July 7,
2008, until July 2009.
The petitioner also requests that a new
reflecting a new release date.
In support of her motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for
summary judgment, the respondent argues that the petition lacks
merit because the BOP properly calculated the federal sentence.
Specifically, the respondent argues that the petitioner’s federal
sentence did not begin when federal authorities borrowed him from
state custody pursuant to the federal writ.
respondent contends that the petitioner received credit against his
Commonwealth of Kentucky sentence for the entire duration of his
federal writ and that the BOP properly declined to award him
duplicative credit for this time to reduce his federal sentence.
Lastly, the respondent contends that nunc pro tunc designations are
within the exclusive discretion of the BOP.
For the reasons that follow, this Court finds that the report
and recommendation of the magistrate judge should be adopted in its
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de
novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge’s recommendation
to which objection is timely made.
Because the petitioner did not
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
explained that the Commonwealth of Kentucky did not lose its
primary jurisdiction over the petitioner when it lent him to
federal authorities pursuant to the federal writ.
States v. Evans, 159 F.3d 908, 912 (4th Cir. 1998) (“A federal
sentence does not begin to run . . . when a prisoner in state
custody is produced in federal court pursuant to a federal writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum.”).
Furthermore, the petitioner was
granted jail credit against his state sentence for the 519 days
from his arrest on March 28, 2008, through his sentencing in state
court on August 28, 2009.
ECF No. 15-1 at 11.
Thus, absent a nunc pro tunc designation by the BOP under 18
U.S.C. § 3621(b), the petitioner cannot receive credit against his
federal sentence for the time between July 2008 and July 2009. See
Jefferson v. Berkebile, 688 F. Supp. 2d 474, 487 (S.D. W. Va. 2010)
(“[T]he BOP . . . has acquired the power to make a nunc pro
tunc–i.e., retroactive–designation of a state facility as the
official place of imprisonment for a prisoner who has served or is
serving time in state custody.”) (citing Barden, 921 F.2d at 478).
The magistrate judge reviewed the BOP’s nunc pro tunc determination
under the appropriate abuse of discretion standard and found that
the BOP properly considered the required five factors, listed in
§ 3621(b), before denying the petitioner’s request for additional
See id. (“A nunc pro tunc designation, like any other
designation, must be made in accordance with § 3621(b).”) (citing
Trowell v. Beeler, 135 F. App’x 590, 594 (4th Cir. 2005)); Trowell,
135 F. App’x at 593 (“We review [the] BOP’s decision to grant or
deny a prisoner’s nunc pro tunc designation request for abuse of
Accordingly, the magistrate judge concluded that the BOP did
not abuse its discretion and, thus, that the petition should be
dismissed with prejudice.
This Court finds no error in the
Because the parties have not objected to the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge, and because this Court
finds that the magistrate judge’s recommendation is not clearly
erroneous, the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
(ECF No. 23) is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.
respondent’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
Finally, this Court finds that the petitioner was properly
advised by the magistrate judge that failure to timely object to
the report and recommendation in this action would result in a
waiver of appellate rights.
Because the petitioner has failed to
object, he has waived his right to seek appellate review of this
See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 844-45 (4th Cir.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein and to the pro se
petitioner by certified mail.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this
December 4, 2017
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?