Stanford v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP II
ORDER dismissing the case without prejudice; directions to the Clerk. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 1/6/2021. (KLC)
Case 5:20-cv-00621-BJD-PRL Document 3 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID 27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ROBERT ALLEN STANFORD,
Case No: 5:20-cv-621-Oc-39PRL
WARDEN, FCC COLEMEN – USP
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner, an inmate of the federal correctional system proceeding pro
se, initiated this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1; Petition). Petitioner challenges the validity of his 2012
conviction or sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. See Petition at 2. Petitioner
discloses that he has already filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging
this conviction. Id. at 3. The sentencing court denied his petition. Id. Petitioner
seeks to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under § 2255’s saving clause.1 Id. at 9.
Notably, this is the second time Petitioner has filed a petition under §
2241 in this Court challenging his 2012 conviction. See Case No. 5:20-cv-332Oc-38PRL. The Court dismissed Petitioner’s first § 2241 petition sua sponte
for lack of jurisdiction.
Case 5:20-cv-00621-BJD-PRL Document 3 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID 28
As relief, he asks the Court to vacate his unlawful conviction and sentence. Id.
A motion to vacate under § 2255 is the “exclusive mechanism for a federal
prisoner to seek collateral relief unless he can satisfy the ‘saving clause.’”
McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1079, 1081
(11th Cir. 2017) (“Congress gives a federal prisoner one opportunity to move to
vacate his sentence.”). The saving clause is triggered only when a prisoner’s
remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” See § 2255(e). The Eleventh Circuit now makes clear that only in
three narrow circumstances is a remedy under § 2255 “inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality” of a petitioner’s detention:
(1) when raising claims challenging the execution of
the sentence, such as the deprivation of good-time
credits or parole determinations; (2) when the
sentencing court is unavailable, such as when the
sentencing court itself has been dissolved; or (3) when
practical considerations, such as multiple sentencing
courts, might prevent a petitioner from filing a motion
Bernard v. FCC Coleman Warden, 686 F. App’x 730, 730-31 (11th Cir. 2017)
(citing McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1092-93). If a petitioner could have brought his
claims in a § 2255 motion, the remedy is adequate and effective even if those
claims would have been foreclosed by binding precedent. McCarthan, 851 F.3d
Case 5:20-cv-00621-BJD-PRL Document 3 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID 29
at 1086, 1090 (noting the “motion to vacate provided an adequate remedy”
because the petitioner had the opportunity to raise the argument previously).
Petitioner is not entitled to proceed under § 2241 because the limited
circumstances under which § 2255’s saving clause applies are not present here.
For example, Petitioner does not challenge the execution of his sentence, and
the single sentencing court remains available. See Bernard, 686 F. App’x at
730-31. Petitioner attempts to avoid McCarthan’s limitations by arguing he is
actually innocent, having been convicted of a “non-existent offense.” See
Petition at 10. Petitioner’s argument is foreclosed by McCarthan, which
overruled the case law upon which Petitioner relies.
Accordingly, it is
This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case
without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 6th day of
Case 5:20-cv-00621-BJD-PRL Document 3 Filed 01/06/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID 30
Robert Allen Stanford
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?