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.

Head v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

March 23, 2015

JAMES M. HEAD, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants

James M. Head, Plaintiff, Pro se, Petersburg, VA USA.

For U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Defendant: Jodi T. George, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC USA.

For U.S. Parole Commission, Defendant: Jodi T. George, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC USA.

Page 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5. The motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The " [p]laintiff has been incarcerated . . . since at least December 7, 1977 [, as] the result of two murder convictions by way of a jury trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia." Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Jurisdiction & Parties, ECF No. 4 (" Am. Compl." ) ¶ 7; see Head v. United States, 451 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1982) (affirming convictions on two counts of first-degree felony murder while armed, two counts of first-degree premeditated murder while armed, and two counts of armed robbery). On July 30, 1980, the Superior Court imposed a life sentence " with a parole eligibility date slated for December 2, 2013." Am. Compl. ¶ 8.

The plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Petersburg, Virginia, id. ¶ 1, explains tat he was to serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years, id. ¶ 9. He claims that the " nonmandatory portion of [his] sentence was subject to reduction based upon receipt of good time credits," id. ¶ 10, pursuant to " the District of Columbia Good Time Credits Act which became effective on April 11, 1987," id. ¶ 11. According to the plaintiff, he " is entitled to ten (10) days good time credit for each month of his sentence," id. ¶ 13, and because credit accrued but could not be applied while he served the 20-year mandatory minimum sentence, " said credit[] transformed into personal property which in turn granted [him] a vested property interest," id. ¶ 15. Neither the Federal Bureau of Prisons (" BOP" ), see id. ¶ ¶ 16-18; see also id., Exhibit (" Exh." ) 2 (Administrative Remedy Attempt at Informal Resolution), nor the United States Parole Commission (" USPC" ), see id. ¶ 21, has granted the plaintiff's request for an award of the good time credit he contends he is entitled to receive.

Page 3

The plaintiff alleges, see id. ¶ ¶ 28-30 (Count I), that the BOP and the USPC negligently " caused [him] not to benefit from the [Good Time Credit Act] by not applying accrued good time credit[] to the nonmandatory sentence [he] is serving," id. ¶ 28; see id. ¶ 26. He also brings a conversion claim against the BOP, see id. ¶ ¶ 31-33 (Count II), alleging that the BOP " unlawfully converted [his] personal property for its own personal use or in the alternative exerted wrongful dominion over [his] property," id. ¶ 25, that is, accrued good time credit. Lastly, the plaintiff brings a constitutional claim against both defendants, see id. ¶ ¶ 35-36 (Count III), alleging that the BOP and the USPC have deprived him of " a protected property interest in receipt of good time credits," id. ¶ 35, in spite of the defendants' obligation to give " full faith and credit . . . to the [Good Time Credit Act], as mandated by [the] Constitution of the United States," id. For this purported violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, id. ¶ 4, and for the other injuries allegedly caused by the defendants, the plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages, see id. ¶ ¶ 30, 33, 36, 38.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Venue

The plaintiff invokes 28 U.S.C. § § 2671 and 2674 as bases for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the " various common law state torts" allegedly committed by the defendants. Am. Compl. ¶ 4; see Complaint, ECF No. 1-1 & Ex. (Claim for Damage, Injury or Death (Standard Form 95) dated December 9, 2013). Thus, the plaintiff's negligence and conversion claims proceed under ...


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.