from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky at London. No. 6:16-cv-00189-Danny C.
Reeves, District Judge.
Tyganda Gilmore, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, pro se.
Before: SUTTON, McKEAGUE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
SUTTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Gilmore wants closure. While Gilmore was serving a sentence
in federal prison, South Carolina told him that it planned to
charge him with unrelated state-law offenses. He responded by
asking state officials to coordinate with the Federal Bureau
of Prisons to resolve the outstanding charges. But they never
replied. Gilmore filed a habeas petition in federal court
asking the court to dismiss the state charges because South
Carolina violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act.
The district court refused. We affirm on the ground that he
named the wrong official.
2006, Gilmore pleaded guilty to federal drug offenses and
began serving a 188-month sentence. South Carolina had
planned to charge Gilmore with assault and battery and
failure to pay child support. But the federal government
indicted him first. Because he was already in federal
custody, the State filed a detainer-a request from one
jurisdiction (South Carolina) asking another (the Federal
Bureau of Prisons) to notify it before releasing a
prisoner-for the assault and battery charges. That way South
Carolina could prosecute Gilmore when he was released.
Bureau told Gilmore about the state charges and explained his
rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. If he
asked South Carolina to resolve the charges underlying the
detainer, the State would need to try him within 180 days.
See 18 U.S.C. app. 2, § 2, art. III(a). Failure
of the State to do so would result in dismissal of the
charges and void the detainer. Id. art. V(c).
Gilmore told prison officials that he wanted to exercise his
rights under the Act. The Bureau did its part to help. On
October 12, 2006, it notified the Solicitor of Richland
County, South Carolina that Gilmore had requested final
disposition of the charges. It later offered to deliver
Gilmore to South Carolina for temporary custody. The Bureau
followed up on its earlier correspondence.
January 2007, the Solicitor's Office replied that it
"ha[d] no charges pending" against Gilmore. R. 1-2
at 14. It could only speculate that any charges originated in
the Richland County Sheriff's Department. The Bureau
informed the State that it "was this office's
intention that your office would forward the paperwork to the
appropriate Court" but volunteered to take on the task.
Id. at 15. On January 26, 2007, it forwarded
Gilmore's request to Richland County's Magistrate
Court. No one responded-not the Solicitor, not the Sheriff,
not the County Court.
years later, South Carolina sent another detainer request to
the Bureau, this time with the charge that Gilmore had failed
to pay child support. Gilmore took matters into his own
hands. In 2015, he wrote the South Carolina Magistrate Judge
assigned to his case. "I have been attempting to resolve
the outstanding issues" for almost ten years, he said,
adding that the detainers made it difficult for him to
"complete numerous rehabilitative programs."
Id. at 1. No one responded.
filed two habeas petitions in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina alleging that South Carolina
violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. That
court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over
Gilmore's federal custodian, Big Sandy Warden Gregory
Kizziah, in Inez, Kentucky. It transferred both petitions to
the Eastern District of Kentucky. That court, in turn,
dismissed both petitions for failure to exhaust. On appeal,
Gilmore pursues only his petition relating to the assault and
Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act did not start out as an
act. It began as an agreement between States. In the 1950s,
the Council on State Governments proposed an interstate
agreement to hasten the resolution of lingering criminal
detainers. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340,
349-51 (1978). Before long, twenty-two States had signed the
agreement. Agreement on Detainers, Nat'l Ctr. for
Interstate Compacts. That approach implicated the Compact
Clause, which provides that "No State shall, without the
Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or
Compact with another State." U.S. Const. art. I, §
10, cl. 3. In 1970, Congress "enacted" the