Powell v. USA
Filing
5
ORDER denying 4 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 8/8/2016. (Chen, C.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
QUINNE POWELL,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 3:16-cv-929 (VAB)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner Quinne Powell moves for reconsideration of the Court’s June 30, 2016 order
transferring his second petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to the Second
Circuit for its consideration of whether to authorize the filing of a second or successive section
habeas petition. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is DENIED.
Procedural Background
Convicted in this court (Nevas, J.) of eight counts, including charges of racketeering,
RICO conspiracy, drug conspiracy, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and conspiracy to
commit money laundering, Mr. Powell is serving five concurrent life sentences, two concurrent
ten-year sentences, and one concurrent twenty-year sentence at the Federal Correctional Institute
Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia.
On December 31, 2009, Mr. Powell filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction. This Court (Dorsey, J.) denied the petition on the
merits in an order signed on May 26, 2011. See Ruling Denying Motion to Vacate, Powell v.
United States, No. 3:09-cv-2141 (D. Conn. June 2, 2011), ECF No. 21. Subsequently, Mr.
Powell filed the present federal habeas petition on June 14, 2016, purportedly under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, arguing that two recent Supreme Court decisions have substantively changed the law and
that the conduct for which he was convicted no longer constitutes criminal offenses.
This Court construed the present habeas petition as a second or successive motion under
section 2255. Although the petitioner framed the present petition as one made under section
2241, this Court construed his petition as one under section 2255 because Mr. Powell was
challenging the constitutionality of the imposition of his sentence and section 2241 petitions can
only be used to challenge the execution of a federal sentence. See Order of Transfer, Powell v.
United States, No. 16-cv-929 (D. Conn. June 30, 2016), ECF No. 3. A petitioner may only use
section 2241 to challenge the imposition of his sentence in when the remedy provided by section
2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. The Second Circuit has
only recognized this exception in one context, “cases involving prisoners who (1) can prove
actual innocence on the existing record and (2) could not have effectively raised their claims of
innocence at an earlier time.” Bryce v. Scism, No. 3:09-cv-2023, 2010 WL 5158559, at *3 (D.
Conn. Dec. 13, 2010) (quoting Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 363 (2d Cir. 1997)).
This exception did not apply to Mr. Powell’s petition. Mr. Powell’s 2009 habeas petition was
decided on the merits, making the 2016 petition a second or successive motion under section
2255.
Because Mr. Powell filed the second petition without first obtaining the authorization of
the Second Circuit, as is required under section 2255, this Court was without subject matter
jurisdiction to consider the petition. Under section 2255, the Second Circuit must certify that a
successive petition contains “(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of
the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that
no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of
2
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was
previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This court therefore transferred this case to the
Second Circuit for its certification. See Order of Transfer, Powell, No. 16-cv-929, ECF No. 3.
Discussion
Mr. Powell’s pending motion is a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court may only grant a motion for reconsideration if the
“moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked” and “that
might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 256-57 (2d Cir. 1995). Mr. Powell’s motion for reconsideration
merely states, in a conclusory fashion, that this Court erred in transferring the case to the Second
Circuit. See Motion for Reconsideration, Powell, No. 16-cv-929, ECF No. 4. It does not cite to
any controlling law or other information that could alter the conclusion that transfer to the
Second Circuit was proper. His 2016 habeas petition is, in fact, a successive petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 that must be certified by the Second Circuit before this Court can have subject
matter jurisdiction to consider it. This Court must, therefore, deny the motion for
reconsideration.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Powell’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 8th day of August, 2016.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
Victor A. Bolden
United States District Judge
3
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?