Rollins v. Warden FCI Talladega

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 3/14/2018. (KBB)

FILED
2018 Mar-14 PM 02:28
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
EDDIE ROLLINS,
Plaintiff,

v.
WARDEN FCI TALLADEGA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number:
1:18-cv-00052-AKK-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Eddie Rollins filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, arguing that his 360 month sentence was calculated incorrectly in light of the
Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). Doc.
1. Rollins believes his claim falls within the saving clause1 of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e),
which allows a federal prisoner to challenge his sentence in a § 2241 petition when
he cannot raise that challenge in a § 2255 motion because of § 2255(h)’s bar
against second and successive motions. Doc. 1. The magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation concludes that Rollins’ petition is due to be dismissed
because (1) Gilbert v. United States prohibits such motions where the sentence the
prisoner is attacking does not exceed the statutory maximum, see 640 F.3d at 1295,

1

The saving clause permits a second or successive motion where it “appears that the
remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. §
2255(e).

and Rollins’ sentence falls well within that range; 2 and (2) McCarthan v. Dir. of
Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc. prevents § 2255(e) saving clause challenges solely
on the basis of a change in case law, see 851 F.3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir.) (en banc),
which is precisely what Rollins seeks to do here. Doc. 3.
Rollins filed an objection, primarily arguing that McCarthan was wrongly
decided and following this precedent would require him to have been “clairvoyant”
enough to predict future changes in case law when he was challenging his sentence
on direct review, as “[t]he line of cases supporting Rollins’ claims did not arise
until long after his original § 2255 motion was filed.” Doc. 3. The court generally
agrees with Rollins, as the McCarthan’s majority opinion “reads the savings clause
right out of the statute” and “leaves federal judges unaccountable when we wield
our power to take away people’s liberty for longer than the law allows.”
McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1119 (Martin, J., dissenting). Unfortunately, McCarthan
is the law of the Eleventh Circuit. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation, doc. 3, is due to be adopted. A separate order will be entered.
DONE the 14th day of March, 2018.
_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

Rollins was convicted of several drug crimes, including 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), which
includes a maximum sentence of life in prison for any crime involving “50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 500 grams or more of a mixture
or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of
its isomers.” 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A)(viii).