“A state’s interpretation of its own laws or rules provides no basis for federal habeas corpus relief, since no question of a constitutional nature is involved.”
How later courts described this case
- “A state’s interpretation of its own laws or rules provides no basis for federal habeas corpus relief, since no question of a constitutional nature is involved.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
DECIUS OCTAVIUS MANUEL, )
#331527, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 3:24-CV-790-WKW
) [WO]
ROLANDA CALLOWAY, )
ALCORNELIA TERRY, DIRECTOR )
OF CENTRAL RECORDS, and LEE )
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT )
CLERK, )
)
Respondents. )
ORDER
Petitioner Decius Octavius Manuel, a convicted state inmate in the custody of
the Alabama Department of Corrections, filed this pro se petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 in December 2024. He is serving concurrent sentences of 48 months for three
guilty plea convictions of unlawful possession of a controlled substance.1 Petitioner
challenges the calculation of his jail credit time, alleging entitlement to 357 days of
1 On February 9, 2022, Petitioner filed an application to plead guilty to three counts of
unlawful possession of a controlled substance, agreeing to concurrent sentences of 48 months,
suspended for 2 years of supervised probation. He was ordered to pay various fines and fees and
was given 151 days of jail credit. After failing to appear in court on June 27, 2022, a no bond writ
of arrest was issued, and Petitioner was arrested on October 25, 2022. On March 27, 2024,
Petitioner’s probation was revoked due to new offenses, and he was ordered to serve his sentences
concurrently with 71 days of jail credit. In total, Petitioner was awarded 222 days of jail credit.
(See Doc. # 17 at 2–4 & Exhibits.)
jail credit. (Doc. # 1 at 8.) Contending that Respondents’ failure to award the proper
amount of jail credit violates Alabama Code § 15-18-5(a), he requests this court to
enter a judgment directing Respondents to adjust his jail credit accordingly.
Respondents have filed an opposition to the § 2241 petition. (Doc. # 17.) They
contend that the petition does not present a federal question and should be dismissed
as it is not cognizable under federal habeas review.2 (Doc. # 17 at 5.) As explained
below, the petition must be dismissed on that basis.
Alabama Code § 15-18-5(a) provides:
Upon conviction and imprisonment for any felony or misdemeanor, the
sentencing court shall order that the convicted person be credited with
all of his actual time spent incarcerated pending trial for such offense.
The actual time spent incarcerated shall be certified by the circuit clerk
or district clerk on forms to be prescribed by the Board of Corrections.
This court, as well as other federal district courts in Alabama, “have found
challenges to the calculation of jail credit under Ala. Code § 15-18-5 to be foreclosed
as non-cognizable for purposes of federal habeas review.” Dean v. Billups, 2020
WL 7873069, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 25, 2020) (collecting cases), report and
recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 27680 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 4, 2021); accord Steiger
v. Carter, 2020 WL 7220831, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 13, 2020), report and
2 Respondents further contend that, even if the claim were cognizable, the petition is both
unexhausted because Petitioner has not presented it to the state courts and time-barred under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. (Doc. # 17 at 6–10.) These arguments offer
additional grounds for dismissal; however, they will not be addressed here.
recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 7211638 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 7, 2020); see also
Ellison v. Crow, 2020 WL 8678732, at *4 (N.D. Ala. July 6, 2020) (“Ellison’s claim
regarding the calculation [of jail credit on his state sentence under Alabama law]
does not fall under the purview of this court, as credit for jail time constitutes a
matter of state law.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 8678014
(N.D. Ala. July 29, 2020); West v. Alabama, 2017 WL 3836076, at *2–3 (N.D. Ala.
Aug. 3, 2017) (“West does not deny he must serve twenty years, nor does he contend
a twenty-year sentence is unauthorized under state law; he simply disputes what
counts towards serving that time. This is purely a matter of state law and does not
implicate the Eighth Amendment.”), report and recommendation adopted sub nom.
West v. State of Alabama, 2017 WL 3781362 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 31, 2017); Dupont v.
Jones, 2012 WL 5463834, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 15, 2012) (“The [state] trial court’s
alleged failure to award [the petitioner] the proper amount of jail credit on his twenty
year split sentence, even if true, involves the Alabama courts’ interpretation of
Alabama law, and, thus, does not amount to a violation of any federal constitutional
right. . . .”), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 5897124 (M.D. Ala.
Nov. 8, 2012).
While a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 allows a prisoner to challenge the
execution of his sentence, the petitioner must demonstrate a violation of federal law
or the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (“The writ of habeas
corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h] e is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”). Federal habeas corpus relief
does not extend to errors of state law unless the alleged error also implicates a federal
issue. See, e.g., McCullough v. Singletary, 967 F.2d 530, 535 (11th Cir. 1992) (“A
state’s interpretation of its own laws or rules provides no basis for federal habeas
corpus relief, since no question of a constitutional nature is involved.”) (citation
omitted).
In line with these principles, Petitioner’s claim regarding jail credit does not
implicate a violation of the United States Constitution or other federal law. Even
assuming the Alabama authorities failed to award the correct amount of jail credit,
such a claim rests solely on the Alabama courts’ interpretation of Alabama law.
Because Petitioner’s petition concerns only the application of state law, it is not
cognizable on federal habeas review and must be dismissed.3
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Petitioner Decius Octavius
Manuel’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 5th day of June, 2025.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 A certificate of appealability (COA) is not required because “a federal prisoner who
proceeds under § 2241 does not need a COA to [appeal].” Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 1364
n.3 (11th Cir. 2003).