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.

Fletcher v. Attorney General of The United States

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington

March 19, 2014

LAMARR FLETCHER, Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Lamarr Fletcher's motion for relief from judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) [DE 32], concerning the dismissal of his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [DE 19, 20]

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order ("MOO") entered on October 5, 2010, the Court denied Fletcher's § 2241 habeas petition. [DE 19] Fletcher appealed that denial to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. While Fletcher's appeal was still pending, in a letter addressed to the undersigned dated October 16, 2012, Fletcher provided the Court with a copy of his State Sentencing Information sheet [DE 25-1] reflecting certain jail credit the State of Tennessee had given him on his state sentence relevant to his § 2241 habeas petition. Fletcher advised the Court that he considered this information to be newly discovered evidence, which was not previously available to him, and he claimed that this newly discovered evidence was proof that Tennessee had not awarded him the jail credit that he was seeking in his § 2241 habeas petition. Fletcher's letter acknowledged that his appeal was still pending[1], and he requested the Court to certify his attached copy of the State Sentencing Information and forward it to the Sixth Circuit for its consideration. Fletcher's letter was filed of record. [DE 25]

For the reasons stated in the Order of October 23, 2012 [DE 26], the Court construed Fletcher's letter as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and denied that motion because as a general rule, the district court loses jurisdiction over an action once a party files a notice of appeal, and jurisdiction transfers to the appellate court.[2] Pittock v. Otis Elevator Co., 8 F.3d 325, 327 (6th Cir. 1993). Fletcher appealed, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Fletcher's construed Rule 60(b) motion. [DE 35]

On April 8, 2013, Fletcher filed the present motion for relief from judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b), concerning both the denial of his § 2241 habeas petition and the denial of his prior construed Rule 60(b) motion. [DE 32] Having been fully briefed [DE 33, 34], this motion is ripe for review.

DISCUSSION

Subsequent to the denial of his § 2241 habeas petition, Fletcher obtained information concerning the jail credit he had received from the State of Tennessee on the state parole violation sentence applicable at the time he was removed from state custody on a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Fletcher advised that he did not have and was unaware of this information previously and that it was not in the record before the Court when it dismissed Fletcher's habeas petition in October 2010. At that time, the only information that was of record concerning the jail credit Fletcher had received on his state sentence was information contained in an e-mail exchange between Nancy Davis, Legal Instruments Examiner, at the BOP's Designations & Sentence Computation Center ("DSCC") in Grand Prairie, Texas, and Jeannetta Kimbro at the Tennessee Department of Corrections in January 2008, detailed below:

The Nancy Davis e-mail to Jeannetta Kimbro, dated 1/22/2008, stated:
It looks as if he was arrested on 10-21-2003 and detained since that date, I am not sure when he was revoked by TN DOC. Please let me know the date is [sic] was revoked, the date he came back into your system, any jail credit or any other credit applied to his sentence, the actual term in effect of his sentence and the date that you expect him to expire.
The Jeannetta Kimbro response e-mail to Nancy Davis, dated 1/25/2008, stated:
He was paroled 6-7-99 on case #8501981 ct 1 and ct 2. He was returned to the county jail on a parole violation warrant 10-21-03, he was transferred to DOC 11-18-03 and his parole was revoked 1-9-07. He received all parole time and time served credits from 10-21-03.
When convicted he was sentenced as a Habitual offender, which has no expiration date. It is calculated like a life sentence. It will never expire, but he ...

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.