Speight v. Bradley et al

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 13 Report and Recommendations. The Court overrules Ms. Speight's objections and adopts Judge Borden's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 08/31/2020. (CJM)

FILED
2020 Aug-31 PM 06:19
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MACKESE WALKER SPEIGHT,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
P. BRADLEY, et al.,
Respondents.

Case No. 2:18-cv-00816-MHH-GMB

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 14, 2020, Magistrate Judge Borden entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court dismiss this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of
habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 13). On June 15, 2020, Ms. Speight
filed objections to the report. (Doc. 17).
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In
her objections, Ms. Speight argues that the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit’s decision in McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill IndustriesSuncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc), does not eliminate the
Court’s ability to consider this § 2241 action. The Court disagrees.
In McCarthan, the Eleventh Circuit explained that § 2255(e), “[t]he saving
clause,” offers a federal prisoner “relief only when his ‘remedy by motion is
1

inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).”
McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1085. The Eleventh Circuit held that adverse circuit
precedent does not prevent a criminal defendant from “test[ing] the legality of [her]
detention” in a § 2255 motion to vacate because in a motion to vacate, a defendant
may ask for reconsideration of the adverse authority. McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1087.
If a defendant could have challenged a sentencing enhancement in her § 2255 motion
by asking the district court to revisit adverse authority concerning the enhancement,
then the § 2255 motion was not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of her
detention. McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1087.
Here, Ms. Speight, citing post-sentencing changes in the law, argues that the
sentences on her convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) should not have been
enhanced. (Doc. 7). Under McCarthan, Ms. Speight may not raise the argument in
a § 2241 habeas petition because she could have argued for a change in the law
regarding the enhancements as a means of sentence reduction in her § 2255 motion.
Therefore, the Court overrules Ms. Speight’s objections and adopts the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. By separate order, the Court will
dismiss this § 2241 action for lack of jurisdiction. In accordance with Rule 11 of the
Rules Governing 2254 Proceedings, this Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability. If she wishes to appeal, Ms. Speight must request a certificate from
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
2

DONE and ORDERED this August 31, 2020.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3