United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
JOHN E. JONES III
before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
(Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by
Petitioner, Trae Javar Compton (“Compton”), a
federal inmate presently incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary at Lewisburg (“USP-Lewisburg”),
Pennsylvania. Compton asserts that his constitutional rights
have been violated by the cumulative loss of good conduct
time imposed as a sanction following disciplinary proceedings
spanning the entirety of his incarceration. He also
challenges the validity of his conviction and sentence. He
seeks “to be reimburst [sic] (GCT) Good Conduct Time
credit, and Disallow Good Conduct Time Credit to Vacate
Sentence an[d] be immediately release [sic].” (Doc. 1,
petition is ripe for disposition and, for the reasons that
follow, the Court will dismiss the petition.
Loss of Good Conduct Time
“contends that he is allowed 54 [good conduct] days in
1-year an[d] that the DHO Hearing Officer has been taken
[sic] more then [sic] the 54 days in one year from
2012-2016.” Specifically, according to his Sentence
Monitoring Data, ninety-four days were taken in 2012, 175
were taken in 2013, in 2014, 121 days were taken, 188 days
were taken in 2015, in 2016, 336 days were taken, in 2017,
257 days were taken and, 162 days were taken in 2018. (Doc.
1, p. 2). (Id.). He asserts that the excessive
taking of his good conduct time through disciplinary
sanctions has caused him to lose the privilege of being
released to a halfway house and violates his First, Fourth,
Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. (Id. at 3, 4).
September 2012 and March 2019, Compton utilized the
administrative review process approximately thirty two times.
(Doc. 10-2, pp. 8-36). On January 14, 2019, he filed
administrative remedy #964724-F1, raising the issue of the
excessive forfeiture of his good conduct time. (Doc. 10-2,
Declaration of Michael Figgsganter (“Figgsganter
Decl.), ¶ 8; Doc. 10-2, p. 36). The remedy was rejected
on that same date. (Id. at ¶ 9; Id.).
Compton failed to re-file the administrative remedy or
administratively appeal the rejection. (Id. at
¶ 10; Id.).
Challenge to Federal Conviction and Sentence
also “challenges the validity of his conviction or
sentence as imposed under the savings clause 28 U.S.C.
§2255(e).” (Doc. 1, p. 2). Initially, the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina imposed a sentence of 280 months imprisonment for
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922
in the matter of U.S.A. v. Compton, N.C. M.D. No.
1:10-cr-0090. (Doc. 10-2, Figgsganter Decl., ¶ 3; Doc.
10-2, pp. 37-57). Compton appealed. (Id. at p. 46).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
(Id. at 48). On March 19, 2012, the district court
resentenced him to 120 months imprisonment; the court entered
the amended judgment on April 11, 2012. (Id. at 49).
The appellate court affirmed the sentence. (Id. at
Compton filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255, which the sentencing court denied on
November 13, 2015. (Id. at 50, 53). The sentencing
court dismissed a second § 2255 motion on November 16,
2016, for failure to obtain certification from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (Id.
at 55). On July 16, 2018, he again challenged the validity of
his conviction and sentence in the sentencing court
via a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. (Id. at 56). The sentencing
court dismissed the petition on December 3, 2018, based on
Compton's failure to obtain certification by filing a
Motion for Authorization in the Court of Appeals as required
by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2244 and Fourth Circuit
Local Rule 22(d). (Id. at 57).
matter of Compton v. Ebbert, M.D.PA. No.
1:18-cv-2157, this Court considered a §2241 petition
previously filed by Compton. The Court dismissed the petition
for lack of jurisdiction on December 4, 2018.
Cumulative Loss of Good Conduct Time
argues that the petition should be dismissed based on
Compton's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies
prior to seeking review in federal court. (Doc. 10, pp. 5-8).
In general, the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
(“BOP”) administrative review remedy program is a
multi-tier process that is available to inmates confined in
institutions operated by the BOP for review of an issue which
relates to any aspect of their confinement. (Doc. 10-2,
Figgsganter Decl. at ¶ 5, citing 28 C.F.R. §§
542.10, et seq.). An inmate initiates the
administrative review process by formally presenting their
complaint to staff. (Id. citing § 542.13(a)).
Staff shall attempt to informally resolve any issues.
(Id.) If informal resolution proves unsuccessful,
the inmate may file a formal written complaint with the
Warden within twenty calendar days of the date on which the
basis of the complaint occurred. (Id. citing §
542.14(a)). If the Inmate is dissatisfied with the
Warden's response, he may appeal to the BOP's
Regional Director within twenty calendar days. (Id.,
citing 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a)). If dissatisfied with the
Regional Director's response, an appeal may be ...