King-Ivor v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 8:17-cv-03103

Petitioner Sam King‑Ivor, a Maryland inmate at Western Correctional Institution, challenges the computation/execution of his sentences and parole eligibility dates.
He asserts his sentences (two consecutive life terms plus 50 years) should run from September 16, 1981, based on a June 9, 1982 sentencing order.
King‑Ivor filed a pro se habeas petition construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking that his sentences be deemed to run from the 1981 date.
The District Court granted in forma pauperis status but found King‑Ivor had not exhausted state remedies for a sentence‑computation challenge.
The court dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied appointment of counsel as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner may obtain federal habeas relief under § 2241 on sentence computation	King‑Ivor contends MPC/DOC failed to commence sentences from Sept. 16, 1981, affecting parole eligibility	Respondent maintains state remedies for sentence computation were available and not exhausted	Petition dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies; § 2241 relief not granted
Whether petitioner exhausted available state remedies before filing in federal court	King‑Ivor proceeded directly to federal habeas seeking relief	State docket shows King‑Ivor did not complete required administrative or state court review	Court found exhaustion incomplete and required before federal habeas
Whether to issue a certificate of appealability	King‑Ivor implicitly seeks review of sentence computation ruling	Government would oppose COA given procedural dismissal	Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability
Whether to appoint counsel	King‑Ivor moved for counsel	No specific justification that overcomes mootness given dismissal	Motion for appointment of counsel dismissed as moot

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas is the exclusive federal remedy to challenge fact or duration of confinement)
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (total exhaustion rule for federal habeas claims)
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (exhaustion and proper forum for challenges to institution processes)
Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1987) (exhaustion requirement discussion)
McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1997) (distinction between § 2254 and § 2241 challenges to conviction vs. execution)
Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996) (same § 2241/§ 2254 distinction)