Gerry Smart v. Warden, FCIB
This text of 2014 DNH 015 (Gerry Smart v. Warden, FCIB) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Gerry Smart v. Warden, FCIB 13-CV-375-SM 01/16/14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Gerry Smart, Petitioner
v. Case No. 13-cv-375-SM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 015
Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Berlin, New Hampshire,1 Respondent
O R D E R
Gerry Smart, an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Berlin, New Hampshire ("FCIB"), has filed a
petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter is before the
court pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts ("§ 2254 Rules"). See
§ 2254 Rule 1 (b) (allowing application of the § 2254 Rules to any
habeas petition).
Claims
In his § 2241 petition. Smart asserts that the federal
Bureau of Prisons, in executing a federal sentencing order, has
deprived him of liberty without due process: (1) by relinguishing
primary authority over Smart on June 28, 2010, after the United
States had assumed such jurisdiction in March 2010, thereby
1 Petitioner's present custodian is Esker Tatum, warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in Berlin, New Hampshire. Warden Tatum is the appropriate respondent in this action. waiving the right to incarcerate Smart after June 28, 2010; and
(2) by failing to compute his federal sentence in a manner that
credits the time he served in the Mississippi Department of
Corrections against his federal sentence.
Discussion
Upon review of the pleadings filed by Smart, the court finds
that one or more of the claims sufficiently alleges that Smart is
"in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . of the United
States," 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), to allow this matter to proceed.
Che court further finds that Smart appears to have exhausted the
claims raised in this petition. The petition (doc. no. 1J shall
therefore be served; the clerk's office is directed to serve the
petition on Esker Tatum, the FCIB warden.
Respondent shall file an answer or other pleading in
response to the allegations made in the habeas petition. The
answer shall comply with the requirements of § 2254 Rule 5.
SO ORDERED.
Smeven J/ McAuliffe United States District Judge
January 16, 2014
cc: Gerry Smart, pro se Seth R. Aframe, Esq.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 DNH 015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerry-smart-v-warden-fcib-nhd-2014.