United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove United States District Judge
Gilmore is an inmate who was previously confined at federal
penitentiaries in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Gilmore
filed two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. The first petition was filed in a case
before another Judge in this district. See Gilmore v.
Coakley, No. 6: 16-cv-189-DCR (E.D. Ky. 2016). The Court
will refer to that other case as Gilmore I. The
second petition was filed in this case, which the Court will
refer to as Gilmore II. Since the two cases involve
overlapping matters, the Court takes judicial notice of the
documents filed by Gilmore in each case, and it will refer to
those documents by citing the record in either Gilmore
I or Gilmore II.
habeas petition in Gilmore II is now before this
Court for an initial review. See 28 U.S.C. §
2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419
F. App'x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will deny that petition.
August 2005, a Magistrate in Richland County, South Carolina
issued an arrest warrant against Gilmore for allegedly
committing “assault/simple assault and battery.”
[Gilmore I at R. 1- 2 at 23]. In October 2005, a
Family Court Judge in the same county issued a bench warrant
against Gilmore for allegedly failing to pay child support as
ordered. [Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 25-26]. Before
these state charges could be resolved, Gilmore pled guilty to
a federal drug-related charge, and he began serving time in
federal prison. See United States v. Gilmore, No. 3:
05-cr-759-JFA (D.S.C. July 27, 2006). The Richland County
Sherriff's Office subsequently lodged a detainer against
Gilmore with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
[Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 33]. It appears that this
initial detainer referred only to the outstanding warrant for
assault. [Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 33].
October 2006, pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers Act (IADA), the BOP gave Gilmore a form notifying
him of the outstanding warrant against him for assault.
[Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 12]. Gilmore signed that
form and another document indicating that he wished to
exercise his rights under the IADA and, thus, was formally
requesting a final disposition on the assault charge.
[Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 11-12]. It appears that BOP
officials then sent these forms and other letters to the
Richland County Solicitor's Office, informing that office
that Gilmore requested disposition of the assault charge.
[Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 6-13]. The BOP noted that,
under the IADA, “Inmate Gilmore is to be brought to
trial on these charges within 180 days from the date the
forms were received in your office as noted on the certified
mail receipt.” [Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 13].
January 2007, the Richland County Solicitor's Office sent
a response letter to one of the BOP officials acknowledging
the 180-day time period, but adding that it had no charges
pending against Gilmore. [Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at
14]. The Richland County Solicitor's Office explained
that “[i]t could be that this warrant belongs to the
Richland County Sheriff's Department and has not been
received in our office.” [Gilmore I at R. 1-2
at 14]. The Richland County Solicitor's Office then
suggested that the BOP contact the Richland County
Sheriff's Department directly. [Gilmore I at R.
1-2 at 14].
days later, a BOP official sent a letter back to the Richland
County Solicitor's Office, saying that “the
necessary [IADA] paperwork was sent to your office as the
primary prosecutor for Richland County, as we believe your
office is the primary authority for prosecution and
extradition matters in your county.” [Gilmore
I at R. 1-2 at 15]. The BOP official then added that
“[i]t was this office's intention that your office
would forward the paperwork to the appropriate Court in the
case you did not have such jurisdiction. In any event, the
warrant specifies the case is assigned to Hopkins Magistrate
Court, and therefore, I will forward the necessary paperwork
directly to the Hopkins Magistrate Court.” [Gilmore
I at R. 1-2 at 15].
then sent a letter to the Richland County Magistrate -
Hopkins Division indicating that Gilmore had “requested
disposition of pending charges in your jurisdiction pursuant
to the . . . IADA.” [Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at
17]. The BOP also sent another letter to the Richland County
Solicitor's Office and more letters to the Magistrate
again stating that Gilmore was seeking final disposition of
the pending charges pursuant to the IADA. [Gilmore I
at R. 1-2 at 19-21]. However, it is not clear whether the BOP
reached out directly to the Richland County Sherriff's
Department, as the Richland County Solicitor's Office had
claims that he did not hear anything from Richland County
within the 180-day time frame established by the IADA.
[Gilmore I at R. 1 at 6-7]. In fact, Gilmore
suggests that nothing happened until 2011, when the Richland
County Sherriff's Department sent a letter asking the BOP
to once again place a detainer on Gilmore because it held
warrants against him for assault and failure to pay child
support. [Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 27]. It appears
that the BOP acknowledged the existence of this detainer in
2014. [Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 24]. Then, in March
2015, Gilmore wrote his own letter to a Judge in Richland
County attempting to explain the situation and asking that
his assault charge finally be resolved. [Gilmore I
at R. 1-2 at 1-2]. A few months later, the BOP sent more
correspondence to the Richland County Solicitor's Office
indicating that Gilmore was requesting disposition on the
outstanding assault and failure-to-pay-child-support charges.
[Gilmore II at R. 1-1 at 1-6]. Nevertheless, Gilmore
claims that neither he nor the BOP ever received a response.
[Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 29; Gilmore II at
R. 1 at 2].
then requested an administrative remedy with the BOP, arguing
that the state of South Carolina failed to remove him from
federal custody to answer the pending charges against him
within the 180-day time frame specified under the IADA.
[Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 28-32]. In response, the
Warden noted that the BOP “did alert prosecuting
officials of the 180-day lapse.” [Gilmore I at
R. 1-2 at 28]. Similarly, the BOP's Mid-Atlantic Regional
Director acknowledged that the BOP “sent correspondence
to the Richland County, South Carolina, Solicitor and
Richland County, South Carolina, Magistrate several times
pointing out that you have applied for disposition of the
charges against you. Bureau staff have indicated the time
frames and have asked that the state take appropriate action.
To date there has been no response from the state.”
[Gilmore I at R. 1-2 at 31]. Nevertheless, the BOP
officials directed Gilmore to contact his attorney or state
authorities in South Carolina, saying that only the state
could authorize the removal of its detainer. [Gilmore
I at R. 1-2 at 28, 31].
pursuing his administrative remedies, Gilmore filed two
federal habeas petitions with the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina-(1) the petition in
Gilmore I, which alleges a violation of the IADA
with respect to the assault charge, and (2) the petition in
this case, which alleges a violation of the IADA with respect
to the charge of failing to pay child support. [Gilmore
I at R. 1; Gilmore II at R. 1]. However, since
Gilmore was confined at a federal prison in the Eastern
District of Kentucky when he filed each petition, the court
transferred these matters to this district. [Gilmore
I at R. 15; Gilmore II at R. 9].
argues in his petitions that the state of South Carolina has
run afoul of the IADA and his speedy trial rights by not
bringing him to trial or otherwise disposing of the charges
against him. [Gilmore I at R. 1; Gilmore II
at R. 1]. Gilmore complains that since the state's
charges and corresponding detainer remain pending, he has
lost certain prison privileges and is unable to participate
in specific programs, such as the BOP's Residential Drug
Abuse Program (RDAP). [Gilmore I at R. 26, 27, 34;
Gilmore II at R. 14]. Gilmore has submitted evidence
from the BOP that supports this assertion. [Gilmore
I at R. 26 at 2 and R. 27-1; Gilmore II at R.
14-1]. Ultimately, Gilmore asks the Court to remove the
state's detainer. [Gilmore I at R. 26, 27, 34;
Gilmore II at R. 1 at 8-9 and R. 14 at 1]. Gilmore
also recently ...