Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Henderson v. Department of Correction
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
June 22, 2015
MARCUS HENDERSON, Petitioner,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Respondents.
Before the Court is the pro se Petition of Marcus Henderson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 3), and a Motion for Stay and Abeyance (Doc. No. 12). On January 30, 2015, Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending that the Petition and the Motion for Stay and Abeyance be denied. (Doc. No. 14.) On March 2, 2015, Petitioner filed his Objections to the R&R in a document titled “Motion in Oppsotion [sic] to the Report and Recommendation.” (Doc. No. 17.) The Court has reviewed all pertinent filings and documents, and for reasons that follow, the Court will adopt the R&R denying the Petition and also deny Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance.
The following facts are taken from the R&R:
On December 5, 2001, Petitioner was sentenced by Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Sheila Woods-Skipper to a term of three to six years imprisonment for manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance (“State Court Case 1”). Commonwealth v. Marcus Henderson, No. CP-51-CR-1107752-2001. Petitioner’s effective date of sentencing was December 3, 2001. (Doc. No. 8, Ex. A.) As calculated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the original minimum and maximum dates for this conviction were December 3, 2004 and December 3, 2007, respectively. (Id.) After serving approximately three years in prison, on December 5, 2004, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole  paroled Petitioner from his sentence.
On October 5, 2007, the Philadelphia Police Department arrested Petitioner for new criminal charges, stemming from drug offenses that occurred on October 4, 2007 (“State Court Case 2”). Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Marcus Henderson, No. CP-51-CR-0000555-2008. As a result of this arrest and subsequent charges,  the Parole Board declared Petitioner [a delinquent parole violator] effective October 4, 2007. (Doc. No. 8, Ex. A.) [Petitioner was incarcerated as a delinquent parole violator in this case on August 17, 2011.] (Doc. No. 8, Ex. C.) Petitioner was ordered to serve 1, 029 days of back time, which gave rise to a new maximum sentence date of June 12, 2014 [for State Court Case 1]. (Id.)
In addition to the October 2007 arrest and subsequent conviction [which required Petitioner to serve back time], [the Court notes] that Petitioner had several other criminal matters brought against him on both the federal and state levels. On October 7, 2010, United States District Judge Timothy J. Savage sentenced Petitioner to a term of imprisonment of sixty-six months for federal weapons offenses (“Federal Court Case 1”). United States v. Marcus Henderson, No. 09-R-00240-1 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
On March 23, 2011, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Ramy I. Djerassi sentenced Petitioner to a term of two to four years imprisonment for aggravated assault with bodily injury to a police officer (“State Court Case 3”). Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Marcus Henderson, CP-51-CR-0006511-2009. For this state conviction, Petitioner’s minimum [sentence] date was March 23, 2013, and his maximum date [was] March 23, 2015. This sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with his federal conviction. (Doc. No. 8, Ex. F.)
[On March 24, 2011, Judge Djerassi also sentenced Petitioner as follows in two other cases: (1) on State Court Case 2 discussed above, two to four years for manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance; and (2) on case number CP-51-CR-0001592-2009 (“State Court Case 4”), two to four years both for manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance to run concurrently with two to four years for criminal conspiracy. The sentences from State Court Case 2 and State Court Case 4 were to run concurrently making his minimum sentence date March 24, 2013 and his maximum date March 24, 2015. The two to four year sentences for these crimes were to run consecutively to Petitioner’s sentence for Federal Court Case 1.]
On August 16, 2013,  Petitioner filed with this Court a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 1.) Having reviewed this initial Petition, [this Court] found, inter alia, that Petitioner did not use the current standard form as is required in our District. (Doc. No. 2.) For this reason, the Court, in an Order dated October 30, 2013, directed that the Clerk of Court furnish Petitioner with a blank copy of the Court’s current standard form for habeas corpus relief, and instructed Petitioner to complete the current form and return it for filing. (Id.)
On December 4, 2013, Petitioner filed his revised pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 3.) In so doing, Petitioner avers that he is being impermissibly held beyond his original maximum date of December 3, 2007 [from his sentence relating to State Court Case 1]. More specifically, Petitioner avers that the Board’s action to extend his maximum sentence date to June 12, 2014 violated his due process rights. (Doc. No. 11. at 1.) For purposes of exhaustion, Petitioner contends that he challenged the Board’s action giving him a new maximum sentence date of June 12, 2014 [as a result of his parole violation in October 2007] by writing multiple letters to his institution’s records department, his prison counselor, the Clerk of Courts, and the [Parole] Board. Petitioner also avers that he filed a prison grievance dated August 2, 2012. (Doc. No. 3 at 4.)
On December 16, 2013, this case was referred to [Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin] by [this Court] for preparation of a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 4.) . . . . Respondents filed their Answer to [the] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 31, 2014. (Doc. No. 8.) Respondents contend that Petitioner’s application should be dismissed as unexhausted and meritless. Petitioner filed a Reply on March 27, 2014. (Doc. No. 11.)
On September 15, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for Stay and Abeyance. (Doc. No. 12.) In his [M]otion , Petitioner states that he filed a “Writ of Mandamus” to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania dated September 10, 2014 in an effort to exhaust his “claims regarding his sentence calculation, re-sentencing issues relative of parole and continued incarceration.” (Doc. No. 12 at 1.) A review of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania docket, however, shows that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of ...
Buy This Entire Record For