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.

Johnson v. Dept. of Corrections

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

February 9, 2018

JAMES ANTHONY JOHNSON D.O.C. # 125794
v.
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus [doc. 4] and “response in support” [doc. 7] filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se petitioner James Anthony Johnson. Johnson is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“LADPSC”) and is currently incarcerated at the Calcasieu Correctional Center in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

         I.

         Background

         Johnson alleges that he signed an agreement with the LADPSC in 1995, agreeing to give up incentive wages for the right to earn good-time credit on a 32-year sentence imposed on him that year. Doc. 4, pp. 6-7. Accordingly, he maintains, his term of imprisonment should have been cut in half and “and the other half was to be diminished, ” resulting in LADPSC holding him for an extra four years. Id. He states that LADPSC is not maintaining its end of the bargain, in that it failed to award him the promised good-time credit and instead “forced parole on [him] along with parole fees and other fees for classes that don't apply to [him] at all.” Id. at 8. He also alleges that he received another sentence in 2017, for six months with credit for time served, but that the LADPSC is refusing to properly credit him and has instead added another ten years to his sentence. Id. at 10-12. He now brings this petition, seeking immediate release from custody and parole and a “gold seal pardon.” Id. at 12. He also seeks damages, including incentive wages lost under his agreement with the LADPSC, and requests that the matter be referred to the FBI for investigation. Id. In his response he also enumerates several constitutional claims based on the LADPSC's execution of his sentence. Doc. 7.

         II.

         Law & Analysis

         A. Screening of Habeas Corpus Petitions

         A district court may apply any or all of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to those filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes preliminary review of such petitions, and states that they must be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Id. at Rule 4. To avoid summary dismissal under Rule 4, the petition must contain factual allegations pointing to a “real possibility of constitutional error.” Id. at Rule 4, advisory committee note (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). Accordingly, we review the pleadings and exhibits before us to determine whether any right to relief is indicated, or whether the petition must be dismissed.

         B. Application

         1. Exhaustion

         A § 2241 petition on behalf of a sentenced prisoner “attacks the manner in which a sentence is carried out or the prison authorities' determination of its duration.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). In order to prevail, a § 2241 petitioner must show that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). When a state prisoner brings a constitutional challenge against parole procedures or rules affecting his release, and the resolution would entitle him to accelerated release, the challenge is properly asserted under § 2241. Bailey v. Hubert, 2007 WL 1805065 at *4 (E.D. La. Jun. 19, 2007) (citing Davis v. Fechtel, 150 F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir. 1998)).

         A petitioner is not eligible for such relief, however, unless he has first exhausted available state court remedies. Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 1987). The exhaustion requirement is generally only satisfied if all the grounds asserted in the federal position have already been presented to the state's highest court in a procedurally proper manner. Dupuy v. Butler, 837 F.2d 699, 702 (5th Cir. 1998). “[A] federal court should abstain from the exercise of its habeas jurisdiction if the issues may be resolved on the merits in the state court or by some other state procedures available to the ...


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.