West v. Outlaw

Filing 24

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending the District Court dismiss 1 Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Objections to R&R due no later than 14 days from the date the Recommended Dispostition is received. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 12/22/09. (hph)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION A N T H O N Y RAY WEST R e g # 01472-031 v. C A S E NO.: 2:08CV00210 JLH/BD PETITIONER T .C . OUTLAW, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex, F o r r e st City, Arkansas R ESPON D EN T R E C O M M E N D E D DISPOSITION I. P r o c e d u r e for Filing Objections T h e following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States D is tric t Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may file written objections to this re c o m m e n d a tio n . Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal b a s is for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that f in d in g and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your o b je c tio n s must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later th a n fourteen (14) days from the date you receive the Recommended Disposition. A copy w ill be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in w a iv e r of the right to appeal questions of fact. 1 Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: C le rk , United States District Court E a s te rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325 II. B ackground O n April 7, 1988, a Judge for the United States District Court for the Western D is tric t of Missouri sentenced Petitioner Anthony Ray West to a fifteen-year term of im p ris o n m e n t and three years of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. 4205 ("the 1988 s e n te n c e " ) for knowingly and intentionally distributing cocaine, an offense committed b e f o re the effective date of the Sentencing Reform Act ("SRA"). Petitioner was paroled f ro m the 1988 sentence on March 10, 1985. (#1 at p. 7) O n January 11, 2000, federal authorities arrested Petitioner. On May 9, 2001, the U n ite d States District Court for the Western District of Missouri sentenced Petitioner to a 1 2 0 -m o n th term of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of c o c a in e . At sentencing, the District Court recommended that the United States Parole C o m m is s io n ("USPC") run Petitioner's parole violation concurrent with the new sentence it was imposing. (#10-6 at p. 3) The new term of imprisonment was later reduced to 90 m o n th s ("the 90-month sentence"). (#10-7 at p. 3) While Petitioner was serving his 90-month sentence, the USPC issued a warrant b a s e d on a parole violation of the 1988 sentence. (#10-8 at p. 2) The USPC requested 2 the warrant be held as a detainer and not be executed until Petitioner was released from h is 90-month sentence. On May 15, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States D is tric t Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under 28 U.S.C. 2241, claiming the d e ta in e r lodged against him by USPC precluded him from being considered for transfer to le s s secure surroundings and rendered him ineligible for community based programs, in c lu d in g half-way house placement. West v. Outlaw, Case No. 2:07cv00070, 2007 WL 2 9 0 3 0 2 1 at *3 (E.D. Ark. 2007). In proposed findings and recommendations entered on O c to b e r 2, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge John F. Forster, Jr. found that P e titio n e r's arguments were without merit and recommended that Petitioner's 2241 p e titio n be dismissed with prejudice. West v. Sanders, 2:06CV00129 JMM-JFF (E .D .A rk . Oct. 2, 2006). On October 20, 2006, United States District Judge James M. M o o d y entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations a n d dismissed Petitioner's 2241 petition with prejudice. W h e n Petitioner was released from his 90-month sentence on July 25, 2006, the w a rra n t for the parole violation was executed. (#10-9) The USPC issued a Notice of A c tio n ("Notice") on November 29, 2006. (#10-10) The Notice revoked Petitioner's p a ro le and did not credit Petitioner with any of the time spent on parole. Additionally, in th e Notice, the USPC denied parole and ordered Petitioner to serve the original sentence 3 until expiration. The Notice did not order Petitioner's violator term to run concurrent w ith the 90-month sentence satisfied on July 25, 2006. O n May 25, 2007, Petitioner brought a second petition for habeas relief under 28 U .S .C . 2241 challenging, among other things, the USPC's delay in executing the parole v io la to r warrant and holding a parole revocation hearing. West v. Outlaw, Case No. 2 :0 7 c v 0 0 0 7 0 , 2007 WL 2903021 at *1 (E.D. Ark. 2007). United States District Judge J a m e s M. Moody again dismissed the petition with prejudice adopting the proposed f in d in g s and recommendations of Magistrate Judge John F. Forster, Jr. Petitioner brings this petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 claiming Respondent's c a lc u la tio n of his sentence is an unlawful restraint of his liberty.1 (docket entry #1 at p. 8) In his initial response (#10), Respondent argued that the petition should be dismissed for f a ilu re to exhaust administrative remedies. Respondent claimed that Petitioner had not c o m p le te ly exhausted his administrative remedies because he had not filed a form "BP1 1 " appeal of the Regional Director's decision with the Office of General Counsel. (#10 a t p. 3) Petitioner replied to the response attaching a copy of a "Central Office O n October 9, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of Change of Address, reflecting th a t he is now incarcerated at Federal Prison Camp Englewood in Littleton, Colorado. (# 2 0 ) There is no question that, at the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner was in c a rc e ra te d at FCI Forrest City. Thus, at the time the current Petition was filed, the Court c o u ld properly exercise jurisdiction over the 2241 action. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U .S . 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) (the proper respondent in a habeas a c tio n is the petitioner's "immediate custodian" at the time of filing). A petitioner's p o s t-f ilin g transfer does not, in and of itself, defeat jurisdiction. See Copley v. Keohane, 1 5 0 F.3d 827, 830 (8th Cir. 1998). 4 1 Administrative Remedy Appeal" form completed by Petitioner and dated October 2, 2 0 0 8 . (#11 at p. 7) Petitioner also attached an affidavit in which he states the Central O f f ic e has not responded to his appeal. (#11 at p. 5) Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of his attempt to fully exhaust his a d m in is tra tiv e remedies. Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the petition for failure to e x h a u s t administrative remedies. For the reasons set forth below, however, the Court re c o m m e n d s that the District Court dismiss Petitioner's petition without prejudice. III. S u b je c t Matter Jurisdiction: In m a te s contesting the lawfulness of their federal convictions and the sentences im p o s e d generally must bring a motion in the sentencing court to vacate, set aside or c o rre c t their sentence, under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8 th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1147, 125 S.Ct. 2984 (2005). A habeas corpus p e titio n under 28 U.S.C. 2241, on the other hand, is appropriate if the inmate is a tta c k in g the execution of a sentence, or the manner in which the sentence is being carried o u t, and it is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court presiding in the judicial d is tric t where the prisoner is incarcerated. Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 711-12 (8 th Cir. 2002). In this case, Petitioner's claim challenges the Respondent's calculation of his s e n te n c e , and he asks the Court to "order the Bureau of Prisons to recalculate his s e n te n c e " to run his 90-month sentence concurrent with his 1988 sentence. His petition, 5 however, does not challenge the way the BOP has calculated his sentence, but rather the v a lid ity of his sentence. Petitioner claims the District Court violated Section 5G1.3(b) of th e United States Sentencing Guidelines when it failed to order his 90-month sentence to ru n concurrent with the 1988 sentence in violation of "statutory provisions of [18 U .S .C .A . ] 3553(a)." (#1 at pp. 6, 8) The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in fact, addressed this issue in its order d e n yin g Petitioner's appeal of his conviction. See United States v. West, 32 Fed. Appx. 1 9 7 , 2002 WL 535080 (8th Cir. 2002). The Court stated that, "the district court did not h a v e the authority to run [Petitoner's] sentence concurrent with any revocation sentence th e Parole Commission may impose on a prior federal conviction for which he had been p a ro le d at the time he committed the instant offense. See U.S.S.G. 5G1.3, comment (n .6 ); United states v. Murphy, 69 F.3d 237, 245 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1 1 5 3 , 116 S.Ct. 1032." Id. at 198. T h is Court cannot entertain Petitioner's 2241 habeas petition unless the 2255 re m e d y is "inadequate or ineffective" under the statute's savings clause. Title 28 U.S.C. 2255(e) provides: An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is a u th o riz e d to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be e n te rta in e d if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by [ 2255] motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied h im relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by [ 2255] motion is inadequate o r ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 2 8 U.S.C. 2255(e). 6 To take advantage of the savings clause, a petitioner has the burden of d e m o n s tra tin g the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of seeking relief from the sentencing c o u rt under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 959. This is a "narrowly circumscribed `safety valve.'" United States ex rel. Perez v. Warden, FMC Rochester, 2 8 6 F.3d 1059, 1061-62 (8th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 869, 123 S.Ct. 275 (2002). T h e mere fact that an individual may be barred from filing a 2255 motion for p ro c e d u ra l reasons does not render the remedy inadequate or ineffective so as to permit u tiliz a tio n of 2241. Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 959. Specifically, the 2255 remedy is not in a d e q u a te or ineffective merely because the claim was previously raised in a 2255 m o tio n and denied, because petitioner has been denied permission to file a second or s u c c e s s iv e 2255 motion, or because a 2255 petition is time-barred. Id. Thus, a h a b e a s petitioner cannot file a 2241 petition in the district of incarceration merely b e c a u s e he no longer has avenues for relief in the sentencing district. In this case, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the in a d e q u a c y or ineffectiveness of seeking relief from the sentencing court. As set forth a b o v e , Petitioner had the opportunity to raise the same claim raised in this petition with th e sentencing court and the issue was addressed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. To the extent Petitioner is raising a slightly different claim, i.e., that the " S e n te n c in g Commission did not adequately address this particular issue when it drafted 5G1.3," Petitioner could have raised this claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. 7 See Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 960 (holding 2255 relief was adequate when petitioner had a n unobstructed procedural opportunity to raise his claim). Accordingly, the Court does n o t have jurisdiction to entertain his petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241. F u rth e r, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the substantive decisions of th e Parole Commission to grant or deny parole.2 Hutchings v. U.S. Parole Commission, 2 0 1 F.3d 1006, 1008 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Jones v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 903 F.2d 1 1 7 8 , 1185 (8th Cir. 1990). IV. C o n c lu s io n F o r the reasons set forth above, the Court recommends that the District Court d is m is s Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1), without prejudice, for lack of s u b je c t matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2009. ____________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This Court would have jurisdiction to review the USPC's decision-making p ro c e s s to determine whether the Commission exceeded the scope of its authority granted b y Congress. Jones, 903 F.2d at 1185. Petitioner does not, however, raise such a claim in th is petition. 8 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?