United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate
Jones (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, is an inmate incarcerated in the McCormick
Correctional Institution in the custody of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). He submitted
this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the
undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief
and submit findings and recommendations to the district
judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned
recommends the district judge dismiss the petition in this
case without prejudice.
Factual and Procedural Background
filed this § 2241 petition challenging the calculation
of his sentence. [ECF No. 1 at 2]. He states he pled guilty
to carjacking, armed robbery, and escape charges on December
2, 2016, and was sentenced to ten years. Id. at 2-3.
Petitioner alleges the judge told him he would receive credit
for the 510 days he served in county jail, but he did not
receive credit. Id. at 8. Petitioner claims he filed
a grievance about his sentence and the response to the
grievance, but was advised that there “was nothing they
could do.” Id. at 6. Petitioner requests the
court to order Respondent to credit him for the 510 days he
served in county jail. Id. at 9-10.
Standard of Review
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of this petition pursuant to the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United
States District Court,  the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No.
104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and other habeas corpus statutes.
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574
F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged
with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se
litigant to allow the development of a potentially
meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the
plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine
v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The
mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings
means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to
state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it
should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal
construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear
failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a
claim currently cognizable in a federal district court.
Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387,
390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
prisoner seeking habeas relief through 28 U.S.C. § 2241
must first exhaust his state court remedies. Although the
exhaustion provisions codified under § 2254 are not
contained in § 2241, the exhaustion requirement
“applies to all habeas corpus actions.” Fain
v. Duff, 488 F.2d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1973); see
Braden v. 30th Judicial Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484,
490 (1973) (applying exhaustion requirement in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 habeas corpus proceeding). This doctrine, based
on principles of comity, requires that, before a federal
court will review allegations of constitutional violations by
a state prisoner, those allegations must first be presented
to the state's highest court for consideration. See
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1976).
Carolina law provides that an inmate may seek review of an
SCDC decision from the South Carolina Administrative Law
Court (“SCALC”). See Al-Shabazz v.
State, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (S.C. 2000); see
also Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 605
S.E.2d 506, 507 (S.C. 2004). These administrative decisions
include inmate discipline and punishment, the calculation of
an inmate's sentence or sentence-related credits, or an
inmate's custody status. Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't
of Corr., 586 S.E.2d 124, 126 (S.C. 2003);
Al-Shabazz, 527 S.E.2d at 750. Under
Al-Shabazz, a petitioner is required to initiate a
grievance with SCDC, obtain a final decision, seek review by
the SCALC, and then seek judicial review by the South
Carolina Court of Appeals before seeking federal habeas
review. Al-Shabazz, 527 S.E.2d at 752-57 (discussing
the application of the Administrative Procedures Act and the
review process); Rule 203(b)(6), SCACR; see also
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(A)(1).
has not shown he exhausted the remedies available to him
under state law with respect to his habeas claim. In fact,
Petitioner admits he has not pursued any of his
administrative and state court remedies. [ECF No. 1 at 6-7].
Because Petitioner has not exhausted his state court
remedies, this petition should be summarily dismissed.
Conclusion and Recommendation
the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the
petition in the ...