Garcia v. Beasley

Filing 15

ORDER OF DISMISSAL the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, to consider Garcia's challenge to his conviction and sentence imposed by the United Sates District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Garcia I; it is therefore ordered that Defendant Gene Beasley's Motion to Dismiss 9 is granted; Petitioner Luis Gerardo Garcia's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 9/4/18. (tjb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
LUIS GERARDO GARCIA
REG. #95616-279
VS.

PETITIONER

2:18-CV-00054-JTR

GENE BEASLEY, Warden,
FCI – Forrest City

RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL1
I. Introduction
Pending before the Court is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus filed by Petitioner, Luis Gerardo Garcia (“Garcia”), who was incarcerated at
the Forrest City, Arkansas, Federal Correctional Institution when he filed his
Petition.2 Doc. 1. In the petition, Garcia challenges his conviction, pursuant to a
guilty plea, and the sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Brownsville Division). United States v. Garcia, 1:11CR-00636 (“Garcia I”). The relevant facts supporting Garcia’s collateral attack on
his federal conviction and sentence are set forth below.
1

The parties consented to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in
this case, including the entry of a final judgment. Doc. 7.
2

Garcia has since been moved to the Giles W. Darby Correctional Institution in Post,
Texas. Doc. 9 at 1.

On November 9, 2011, Garcia pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. On February 14, 2012, Garcia was
sentenced to imprisonment for 175 months. Doc. 9-1 (Garcia I Judgment). Garcia
did not file a direct appeal challenging either his conviction or sentence.
On March 25, 2013, Garcia filed a motion to vacate his sentence in Garcia I
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 9-2. Garcia argued his counsel was ineffective
because: (1) Garcia did not understand the plea agreement; (2) Garcia was innocent
of the charges to which he pled guilty; (3) Garcia’s counsel did not investigate the
facts with due diligence; (4) Garcia’s sentence was improperly enhanced. On
November 19, 2013, the Garcia I court dismissed Garcia’s § 2255 motion as timebarred. Doc. 9-3.
Garcia attempted to appeal the denial of § 2255 relief to the Fifth Circuit.
However, the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute after Garcia failed to
timely comply with the requirements for a certificate of appealability. Doc. 9-4.
As Garcia points out in his Response, he also attempted, unsuccessfully, to
file an out of time appeal of the denial of his § 2255 Motion and requested permission
to file a Second or Successive § 2255 Motion.
On March 30, 2018, Garcia filed the § 2241 habeas action now before this
Court. In his § 2241 petition, he contends: (1) his defense counsel has a nonwaivable conflict of interest due to the “collateral waiver” provision in his plea
2

agreement, which prevented him from pursuing a § 2255 proceeding challenging his
counsel’s effectiveness; (2) the government committed fraud by placing the nonwaivable conflict of interest provision in the plea agreement.
Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss Garcia’s Petition contending that
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider Garcia’s § 2241 Petition.
Garcia has filed a Response opposing Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 14.
Thus, the issues are joined and ready for resolution.
II. Discussion
Jurisdiction over a federal prisoner’s collateral attack on his conviction or
sentence is governed by the well-recognized distinction between claims that attack
the validity of a federal conviction or sentence, and claims that challenge the
execution of a federal sentence. As a general rule, collateral challenges to a federal
conviction or sentence must be raised in a motion to vacate filed in the sentencing
court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than by a habeas petition filed in the court of
incarceration under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Lopez-Lopez v. Sanders, 590 F.3d 905, 907
(8th Cir. 2010); Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004). Because a
§ 2255 motion attacks the validity of the conviction or sentence, it is “a further step
in the movant’s criminal case,” and subject matter jurisdiction lies with the court
which convicted and sentenced the federal prisoner. DeSimone v. Lacy, 805 F.2d
321, 323 (8th Cir. 1986); Thompson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir. 1983).
3

A limited exception to this rule is found in the “savings clause” of § 2255(e),
which permits a federal court in the district of incarceration to entertain a § 2241
habeas petition challenging the validity of a conviction or sentence only if the remedy
under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Hill
v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003). Stated differently, the court of
incarceration has subject matter jurisdiction over a collateral attack on a conviction
or sentence rendered by another district court only if the remedies in the sentencing
district are inadequate or ineffective. A petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating
that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Lopez-Lopez, 590 F.3d at 907;
Hill, 349 F.3d at 1091.
Garcia argues that he has demonstrated “that relief under § 2255 is not
available to him.” While this appears to be true, it has no bearing on whether Garcia
is entitled to the benefit of the “savings clause.” For Garcia to pursue a collateral
attack on his federal conviction under § 2241, “more is required than demonstrating
that there is a procedural barrier to bringing a § 2255 motion.” United States v.
Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000). A § 2255 motion is not “inadequate or
ineffective” merely because: (1) “§ 2255 relief has already been denied;” (2) the
“petitioner has been denied permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion;”
(3) “a second or successive § 2255 motion has been dismissed”; or (4) the “petitioner
has allowed the one year statute of limitations and/or grace period to expire.” Id.
4

In addition, the Eighth Circuit has consistently held that the “savings clause”
may not be invoked to raise an issue under § 2241 which could have been, or actually
was, raised in a direct appeal or a § 2255 motion in the sentencing district. LopezLopez, 590 F.3d at 907; Hill, 349 F.3d at 1092; Nichols v. Symmes, 553 F.3d 647,
650 (8th Cir. 2009).
Garcia also argues that his § 2255 remedy was “inadequate or ineffective”
because he is actually innocent. Doc. 14 at 5. However, Garcia fails to present any
evidence or argument to support this bare assertion. He also suggests that he may
be factually innocent due to a change in the law, but he fails to identify any change
to the law impacting his 2011 drug conviction. Finally, even if Garcia could identify
some support for his actual innocence claim, he fails to show why he lacked the
opportunity to present that claim to the court that convicted and sentenced him. See
Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 962 (8th Cir. 2004) (even if petitioner seeking to
prove that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his conviction
had a viable claim of actual innocence, he could not use § 2241 to present his claims
unless “the petitioner had not had an earlier procedural opportunity to raise the
claim.”).
Garcia’s challenges to his conviction, based on the collateral waiver in his
plea agreement, could have been raised in a timely filed § 2255 proceeding, in which
case the sentencing court would have addressed whether the collateral waiver
5

provision in the plea agreement was valid and enforceable. Similarly, any claims of
actual innocence could have been maintained in a timely § 2255 motion. Garcia has
failed to satisfy his burden to establish that his § 2255 remedy, which he pursued
unsuccessfully in Garcia I, was inadequate or ineffective to challenge the validity of
his conviction and sentence.
III. Conclusion
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to
consider Garcia’s challenge to his conviction and sentence imposed by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Garcia I.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant Gene Beasley’s Motion to
Dismiss, Docket No. 9, is GRANTED. Petitioner Luis Gerardo Garcia’s Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
Dated this 4th day of September, 2018.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6