United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
REGINALD J. RODGERS, Petitioner,
JAMES HURLEY, Respondent,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. COLLINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on petitioner's application
for writ of habeas corpus, filed on a court-form for bringing
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In actuality,
petitioner's claims appear to relate to the execution of
his sentence, and are more appropriately interpreted as ones
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to Rule 4
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, the Court will provide a preliminary
review of petitioner's application for writ of habeas
corpus. The Court will outline specific matters for the
parties for briefing and set forth a briefing schedule below.
November of 2002, petitioner was charged by indictment in
this Court with two counts of being a felon in possession of
a firearm. See United States v. Rodgers, No.
4:02-CR-588 RWS (E.D.Mo.). In April of 2003, petitioner was
indicted in Missouri State Court on two counts of armed
criminal action (F), assault in the first degree (F), and
assault in the first degree/serious physical injury (F).
See State of Missouri v. Rodgers, No. 2103R-00870
(21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County
state charges arose out of an incident on September 2, 2002,
in which petitioner shot into an automobile causing injury to
two people who were in the vehicle. It appears that one of
the felon in possession charges in federal court action arose
from the same incident.
important to note that prior to being sentenced by the state
court, petitioner was sentenced by the Federal District Court
for the charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
He was sentenced by the Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on July
11, 2003. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 46
months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently,
and a 3 year term of supervised release. Petitioner was
immediately remanded to the custody of the United States
to the filings on Missouri Case.Net, a detainer was filed in
petitioner's state court criminal case on October 2,
2003, after petitioner filed a demand for speedy trial in his
case on September 8, 2003. A warrant was served and executed
to attain petitioner on October 30, 2003. Thus, it appears he
was in the State of Missouri's custody at that time.
plead guilty to the state charges on March 5, 2004, and on
April 30, 2004, the court sentenced him as a prior offender
to four concurrent sentences, with the highest sentence being
20 years' imprisonment. Petitioner asserts that the
Missouri State Court Judge ordered his state and federal
sentences to run concurrently, although he has not submitted
any record indicating that to be the case. Petitioner did not
file a direct appeal.
asserts that he was in Missouri State Custody on a writ
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for 205 days. He states
that under the plea agreement reached between the parties he
was to receive credit for all jail time served while in the
St. Louis County jail awaiting trial on the state charges.
Petitioner states that on May 20, 2004 he was transferred
back to FCI Memphis. Pursuant to the Court's
calculations, the time between October 30, 2003 and May 20,
2004 is 203 days. (The Court is calculating from the days
noted on the Missouri Case.Net, which may, of course, not be
as accurate as the notations in the actual detainer records.)
Petitioner states that all parties acknowledged at that time
that he was entitled to 205 days credit to be subtracted from
his St. Louis County convictions.
claims that on April 19, 2006 he was released from FCI
Memphis and MDOC acquired custody of him and sent him to
ERDCC. He states that at that time the ERDCC records officer
told him that he had 184 days of time credit to be applied to
the instant sentence.Petitioner states that when he was later
transferred to Potosi Correctional Center the records officer
there also told him that he had 184 days of time credit, as
endorsed by the St. Louis County Courts and the Justice
states, however, that when he was transferred to Northeastern
Correctional Center (“NECC”), on October 21,
2013, the time credit was completely removed from his records
by respondent Fife. The reasoning given by respondent was
that he had been sentenced by the federal courts on July 11,
claims to have exhausted his administrative and state court
remedies with respect to his denial of time credits relating
to the execution of his sentence. He states that he filed a
declaratory action in state court after being denied his
administrative grievances. See Rodgers v.
Fife, No. 15PI-CC00040 (45th Judicial
Circuit, Pike County Court). In his declaratory judgment
action the Court found that his time in custody was unrelated
to the offense and thus he was not entitled to the time
credit. See Farish v. Missouri Dep't of Corr.,
416 S.W.3d 793, 797-98 (Mo. 2013). Petitioner appealed the
decision, but the decision was affirmed on appeal. See
Rodgers v. Fife, No. ED103563 (Mo.Ct.App. 2015).
asserts in his brief before this Court that the Missouri
courts are “retroactively applying a new rule.”
In essence, petitioner is making an ex post facto argument,
or asserting that Missouri has retroactively changed ...