Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barkley v. Dobbs

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

November 12, 2019

John Charles Barkley, Jr., #09802-058, Petitioner,
v.
Bryan K. Dobbs, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SHIVA V. HODGES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         John Charles Barkley, Jr. (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the calculation of his sentence and seeking habeas corpus relief. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Petitioner is a federal inmate incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Williamsburg, South Carolina. [ECF No. 1 at 1]. On October 4, 2002, Petitioner pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (“Western District of North Carolina”) to three separate counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). USA v. John Charles Barkley, Jr., No. 3:02-CR-195-MOC, ECF No. 31 at 2 (W.D. N.C. Jun. 10, 2009).[1] On July 23, 2003, United States District Judge Lacy H. Thornburg (“Judge Thornburg”), sentenced Petitioner to a term of imprisonment of 166 months for each of the three counts to run concurrently, a three-year term of supervised release, and a special assessment of $300. Petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”), which affirmed his conviction and sentence. Id. at 5-6.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the Western District of North Carolina. Id. at 6. Judge Thornburg denied Petitioner's § 2255 petition on June 10, 2009. Id. at 23.

         Petitioner completed his custodial sentence and commenced supervised release on October 10, 2014. Id. at ECF No. 32. On December 18, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer (“Judge Cayer”), ordered Petitioner be detained pending appearance for a final supervised release violation hearing. Id. at ECF No. 37. On February 2, 2016, United States District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. (“Judge Cogburn”), committed Petitioner to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) for a term of four months and a term of supervised release of two years for violations of the terms of supervised release. Id. at ECF No. 53. On December 19, 2016, Judge Cayer again ordered Petitioner be detained pending appearance before Judge Cogburn for a final supervised release violation hearing. Id. at ECF No. 49. Petitioner pleaded guilty to supervised release violations on February 17, 2017, and Judge Cogburn sentenced him to the custody of the BOP for a term of eight months and a term of supervised release of one year. Id. at ECF No. 54.

         Jurisdiction over Petitioner's supervised release was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (“Middle District of North Carolina”) on January 31, 2018. USA v. John Charles Barkley, Jr., No. 1:18-CR-35-WO-1 (M.D. N.C. Jan. 31, 2018). On April 24, 2018, Petitioner appeared before United States Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld (“Judge Auld”), for an initial appearance and detention hearing. Id. at ECF No. 16. Judge Auld ordered Petitioner be held in custody pending a final revocation hearing. Id. On July 17, 2018, Petitioner appeared before United States District Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. (“Judge Osteen”). Id. at ECF No. 22. Judge Osteen revoked Petitioner's supervised release and committed him to the BOP for a period of 24 months. Id.

         Petitioner alleges the BOP is denying him good time credit under Section 102(b)(1) of the First Step Act. [ECF No. 1 at 2]. He requests the court order the BOP to award him 112 days of good time credit and immediately release him from custody.[2] Id. at 8.

         II. Discussion

         A. Standard of Review

         Under established local procedure in this judicial district, this petition has been carefully reviewed pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2244 Proceedings for the United States District Court, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. 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 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 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).

         B. Analysis

         1. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Matter

         “[I]t is well established that defendants convicted in federal court are obliged to seek habeas relief from their convictions and sentences through § 2255.” Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997)). Challenges to the execution of a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.