United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Patel, Petitioner, Pro Se.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.
Ravi Patel, a self-represented federal inmate in the custody
of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), filed this
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§
2241. This matter comes before the court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Â§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for
a Report and Recommendation on the respondent's motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 12.) Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528
F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Patel 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.) Patel filed a response
in opposition to the respondent's motion. (ECF No. 16.)
Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and
the record in this case, the court concludes that the
respondent's motion should be granted.
Petition, Patel challenges the execution of his sentence
asserting that BOP improperly failed to make an
individualized determination of his eligibility for placement
in a Community Corrections Center ("CCC") under 18
U.S.C. Â§Â§ 3621 and 3624 and BOP Program Statement 7310.04.
(See Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2-3; Suppl., ECF No. 9 at 2;
Petr.'s Resp. Opp'n Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 16 at 2.)
According to Patel, he should have been placed in the CCC
beginning January 24, 2016, but he was not actually so placed
until March 24, 2016, which affected his ultimate release
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) examines the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged
on the face of the petition or complaint. Edwards v. City
of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "[f]actual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The "complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially
plausible when the factual content allows the court to
reasonably infer that the respondent or defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged. Id . When considering a
motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all of the
factual allegations contained in the petition or complaint.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party
"shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party may
support or refute that a material fact is not disputed by
"citing to particular parts of materials in the
record" or by "showing that the materials cited do
not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute,
or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence
to support the fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). Rule 56
mandates entry of summary judgment "against a party who
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence
of an element essential to that party's case."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
deciding whether there is a genuine issue of material fact,
the evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed and
all justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the
non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). However, "[o]nly
disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit
under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of
summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or
unnecessary will not be counted." Id. at 248.
moving party has the burden of proving that summary judgment
is appropriate. Once the moving party makes this showing,
however, the opposing party may not rest upon mere
allegations or denials, but rather must, by affidavits or
other means permitted by the Rule, set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), (e); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at
322. Further, while the federal court is charged with
liberally construing a petition filed by a pro se
litigant to allow the development of a potentially
meritorious case, see, e.g., Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S.
319 (1972), the requirement of liberal construction does not
mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the
pleadings to allege facts which set forth a federal claim,
nor can the court assume the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact where none exists. Weller v. Dep't of
Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Habeas Corpus Generally
corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner to
challenge the legality or duration of his custody. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).
"[I]t is well established that defendants convicted in
federal court are obliged to seek habeas relief from their
convictions and sentences through Â§ 2255." Rice v.
Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing In
re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997)). In
contrast, a motion filed under ...