Alexander v. Outlaw
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that the District Court summarily dismiss 1 Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Objections to R&R due 14 days from receipt of the recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 12/3/09. (hph)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E A S T E R N DIVISION A N D E R S O N ALEXANDER, R e g . #08919-043 V S. NO. 2:09-CV-00175-BSM-BD PETITIONER
T .C . OUTLAW, Warden F e d e r a l Correctional Complex, F o r r e st City, Arkansas
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 United States District J u d g e Brian S. Miller. Any party may file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the o b je c tio n . If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the e v id e n c e that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must b e received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (1 4 ) days from receipt of the recommendations. A copy will be furnished to the opposing p a rty. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal q u e s tio n s of fact.
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 May 9, 2006, Petitioner Anderson Alexander pleaded guilty in the District C o u rt for the Southern District of Mississippi to one count of possession of a firearm by a c o n v ic te d felon, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Alexander v. United States, No. 3 :0 6 c r4 3 4 , 2007 WL 142181, *1 (S.D.Miss. Jan. 16, 2007). On July 21, 2006, the D is tric t Judge sentenced Petitioner to a 180-month term in federal prison, to be followed b y three years of supervised release. Id. Mr. Alexander filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence with the s e n te n c in g court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the motion, Petitioner claimed: (1) his s e n te n c e under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) was unconstitutional; and (2) his counsel was in e f f e c tiv e for failing to file a notice of appeal in the underlying criminal case as he re q u e s te d . Id. On January 16, 2007, the court entered an opinion and order denying Petitioner's m o tio n to vacate and entered a final judgment dismissing Petitioner's case with prejudice. Id. The court found that Petitioner had waived his right to assert a challenge to his s e n te n c e in the plea agreement, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized the v a lid ity of these types of waivers. Id. at *2. The court also held that, even if Petitioner 2
had not waived his right to challenge his sentence, the sentence was not unconstitutional b e c a u s e it did not exceed the statutory maximum authorized by the facts. Id. On the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court held that because P e titio n e r clearly and unambiguously waived his right to appeal, and his ineffective a s s is ta n c e claim did not relate to the voluntariness of his waiver, Petitioner's counsel was n o t unconstitutionally ineffective for not filing an appeal. Id. at *3. The court denied P e titio n e r's motion for reconsideration of the opinion and order on February 5, 2007. O n February 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a "Motion for Traverse" with the sentencing c o u rt. Alexander v. United States, No. 3:06cr434, 2007 WL 642948, *1 (S.D.Miss. Mar. 2 , 2007). In the motion, Petitioner raised two new claims: (1) he did not knowingly or v o lu n ta rily waive his right to appeal; and (2) his prior state convictions did not constitute f e lo n ie s for federal sentencing purposes. Id. The court denied the motion finding that it w a s an unauthorized successive petition under 28 U.S.C.§ 2255. Id. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and motion for certificate of appealability with th e Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the denial of the motion to vacate. The F if th Circuit denied the motion and dismissed the appeal. See United States v. Alexander, N o . 07-60242 slip op. (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 2008). O n February 8, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from final judgment with th e sentencing court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) claiming that his s e n te n c e , which was imposed under the enhancement provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e),
was unconstitutional. The court denied the motion finding it was a successive attempt to s e e k post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without prior authorization from the a p p e lla te court. On October 3, 2008, the Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for a c e rtif ic a te of appealability and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See United States v. A le x a n d e r , No. 08-60326 slip op. (5th Cir. Oct. 21, 2008). O n December 2, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for retroactive application of the s e n te n c in g guidelines to a crack cocaine offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in which he a g a in argued his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) was unconstitutional. In its opinion a n d order denying the motion, the District Court found that, even if the relevant a m e n d m e n ts to the Sentencing Guidelines had been in place at the time Petitioner was s e n te n c e d , there would be no change in the guideline range. The Court went on to a d d re s s Petitioner's claim that his sentence was unconstitutional and again held that the c la im was an unauthorized, successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. P e titio n e r filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit challenging the District C o u rt's order denying the Rule 60(b) motion. On October 16, 2009, the Fifth Circuit e n te re d a final judgment granting the appellee's motion for summary affirmance of the D is tric t Court's order denying the motion. See United States v. Alexander, No. 09-60054 s lip op. (5th Cir. Oct. 16, 2009).
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed with this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner's only claim is that the sentencing court unlawfully enhanced his s e n te n c e under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). (Docket entry #1) Petitioner asks this Court to " [ v ]a c a te , set aside the unlawful enhancement pursuant to [18 U.S.C.] 924(e) and remand th e case back to the sentencing district for resentencing." (#1 at p. 6) For the reasons w h ic h follow, the Court recommends that the District Court summarily dismiss the p e titio n for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 4 of the Rules G o v e rn in g Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.1 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
R u le 4 provides that, "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached e x h ib its that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must d is m is s the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." Although the Rules G o v e rn in g Section 2254 Cases are directly applicable to habeas petitions filed by state p riso n e rs under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, they also may be applied to habeas cases brought under 2 8 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also W h ite Horse v. United States, 2009 WL 3769520 at *1 (D.Minn. Nov. 10, 2009); Brown v . Missouri, 2009 WL 962821 at *2 (E.D.Mo. April 8, 2009). 5
out, 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 clearly challenges the validity of his sentence, not h is conviction or the execution of his sentence. In his petition, Petitioner states, "[n]either th e question of petitioner's guilt nor the advisability of his conviction should be re e x a m in e d but only his sentence." (#1 at p. 12) Petitioner's first § 2255 motion was d e n ie d ; and his appeal of that denial was unsuccessful. See United States v. Alexander, N o . 07-60242 slip op. (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 2008). As set forth in detail above, his s u b s e q u e n t attempts to obtain relief from the sentencing court also have been rejected. Because the sentencing court has already denied Petitioner relief, this Court cannot e n te rta in Petitioner's § 2241 habeas petition unless the § 2255 remedy is "inadequate or in e f f e c tiv e " 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.
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, and did raise, the same claim raised in this p e titio n with the sentencing court. See Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 960 (holding § 2255 relief w a s adequate when petitioner had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to raise his c la im ). Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain his petition under 2 8 U.S.C. § 2241.
C o n c lu s io n F o r the reasons set forth above, the Court recommends that the District Court
s u m m a rily dismiss Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1). DATED this 3rd day of December, 2009.
____________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?