United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MICHAEL A. LOISEAU, Petitioner,
HAROLD E. CLARKE, Respondent.
E. PAYNE, SR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A. Loiseau, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro
se, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 ("§ 2254 Petition, " ECF No. 1)
challenging the manner in which the Virginia Department of
Corrections ("VDOC") is executing his sentence.
Respondent has moved to dismiss. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) will be granted.
March 4, 2010, the Circuit Court for the County of
Spotsylvania ("Circuit Court") convicted Loiseau of
running a continuing criminal enterprise and sentenced him to
an active prison term of twenty (20) years. (Brown Aff.
¶ 4, ECF No. 10-1.) "On May 5, 2010, Loiseau became
a state responsible offender . . . ." (Id.
¶ 5.) "On September 8, 2015, the VDOC
Correspondence Unit sent Loiseau a letter in response to a
written inquiry regarding his time computation and projected
release date." (Id. ¶ 9 .)
Loiseau filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the
Circuit Court. In that petition, Loiseau alleged that the
VDOC had "not appropriately awarded him good conduct
allowance credit to be applied towards his active sentence in
accordance with Virginia law." (ECF No. 10-2, ¶ 1.)
The Circuit Court found that Loiseau had "been
appropriately credited with sentence reducing credit due to
him for the time he has spent within the custody of
VDOC." (Id. ¶ 2.) Loiseau appealed. The
Supreme Court of Virginia refused his petition for appeal.
Loiseau v. Clarke, No. 160845, at 1 (Va. Jan. 3,
February 27, 2017, the Court received Loiseau's §
APPLICABLE CONSTRAINTS UPON FEDERAL HABEAS REVIEW
order to obtain federal habeas relief, at a minimum, a
petitioner must demonstrate that he is "in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
("AEDPA") of 1996 further circumscribed this
Court's authority to grant relief by way of a writ of
habeas corpus. Specifically, " [s]tate court factual
determinations are presumed to be correct and may be rebutted
only by clear and convincing evidence." Gray v.
Branker, 529 F.3d 220, 228 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)). Additionally, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d), a federal court may not grant a writ of
habeas corpus based on any claim that was adjudicated on the
merits in state court unless the adjudicated claim:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). The Supreme Court has
emphasized that the question "is not whether a federal
court believes the state court's determination was
incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable-a
substantially higher threshold." Schriro v.
Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007) (citing Williams
v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 410 (2000)).
December 2, 2008 through May 5, 2010
was continuously confined in the Rappahannock Regional Jail
from December 2, 2008 through May 5, 2010 (519 days) for
pre-trial and post-trial confinement." (Brown Aff.
¶ 6.) During this period, "Loiseau earned sentence
credit at the . . . rate of 2.25 days credit for every 30
days served. Loiseau also received credit toward his sentence
for the 519 days he spent in pre-trial and post-trial
confinement at the Rappahannock Regional Jail."