Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

McCright v. Wilson

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

June 19, 2018

JASON L. McCRIGHT, Petitioner,
ERIC WILSON, Respondent.


          John A. Gibney, Jr. Judge

         Jason L. McCright, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (hereinafter "§ 2241 Petition, " ECF No. 1.) McCright contends that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") "has denied me jail credit from [the] time I was sentenced 3/2009 to June 6th 2012, the sentence was concurrent to any other sentence." (§ 2241 Pet. 7 (capitalization corrected).)[1] The matter is now before the Court on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8). Because, as explained below, McCright's federal sentence was not ordered to run concurrent to the state sentence he had been serving and the BOP has properly calculated his sentence, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED.

         I. Standard for Summary Judgment

         Summary judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). It is the responsibility of the party seeking summary judgment to inform the Court of the basis for the motion, and to identify the parts of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the motion is properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by citing affidavits or '"depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, ' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."' Id. (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and 56(e) (1986)).

         In reviewing a summary judgment motion, the Court "must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." United Slates v. Carolina Transformer Co., 978 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). However, a mere scintilla of evidence will not preclude summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251 (citing Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 442, 448 (1872)). "[T]here is a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the party . .. upon whom the onus of proof is imposed." Id. (quoting Munson, 81 U.S. at 448). Additionally, "Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment." Forsyth v. Ban, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915 & n.7 (5th Cir. 1992)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) ("The court need consider only the cited materials......").[2]

         In support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent submits: (1)the Declaration of Forest Kelly, Correctional Programs Specialist at the Department of Justice's Designation and Sentence Computation Center ("DSCC") in Grande Prairie, Texas ("Kelly Decl., " ECF No. 9-1); (2) the Judgment for McCright's 2009 federal conviction (ECF No. 9-2); McCright's Sentence Summary from the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") (ECF No. 9-3); the U.S. Marshals Service Individual Custody and Detention Report (ECF No. 9-4); the Order reducing McCright's federal sentence to 128 months (ECF No. 9-5); a letter dated May 8, 2012, from the VDOC to the U.S. Marshals Service (ECF No. 9-6); and the BOP's Public Inmate Information Data as of September 12, 2017 (ECF No. 9-7). McCright has not responded, but he did sign his § 2241 Petition under penalty of perjury (§ 2241 Pet. 10).

         In light of the foregoing principles and submissions, the following facts are established for purposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court draws all permissible inferences in favor of McCright.

         II. Summary of Pertinent Facts

         A. Imposition of McCright's State and Federal sentences

         On October 20, 2008, McCright committed the federal offense of Distribution of Cocaine Base for which he is currently incarcerated. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 5).[3]

         On December 5, 2008, McCright was sentenced in the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News, Virginia to a 4-year and 2-month state term of imprisonment for an unrelated state offense of Distribution of Cocaine. (Id. ¶ 6.) McCright was taken into custody by state authorities on December 5, 2008. (Id.)

         On February 27, 2009, McCright was transferred to federal custody pursuant to a writ for prosecution. (Id. ¶ 7.) On July 17, 2009, McCright was sentenced in the Eastern District of Virginia, to a 192-month term of imprisonment for Distribution of Cocaine Base. (Id. ¶ 8.) This sentence was later reduced to a term of 128 months. (Id.) Neither the original Judgment, nor the Order reducing the sentence, indicate that the federal sentencing court ordered the term to be served concurrently with any other sentence. (ECF No. 9-2, at 2-7; ECF No. 9-5, at 2.)[4] McCright was returned to the VDOC on September 22, 2009, for the continued service of the state term of imprisonment. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 9.)

         B. Service of the State and Federal Sentences

         McCright was released by the VDOC, via good time release, on June 6, 2012, to the exclusive custody of federal authorities. (Id. ¶ 10.) The BOP conducted a sentence computation and determined that McCright's federal sentence commenced on June 6, 2012-the date he came into exclusive federal custody. (Id.) The BOP received records from the VDOC which showed that McCright entered VDOC's custody on February 24, 2009. (Id. ¶ 11.) The VDOC calculated Petitioner's sentence as a 4-year and 2-month term of confinement beginning upon commitment to the VDOC with jail credit from April 11, 2008 through May 2, 2008, and from December 5, 2008 through February 24, 2009. (Id.) The BOP sentence computation determined that the federal sentence, a 128-month term, was to run consecutively to the prior state sentence because the judicial orders in McCright's case were silent as to whether the sentence was to be served consecutively or concurrently. (Id. ΒΆΒΆ 8-12.) As all of ...

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.