Messic v. Krueger
ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 3/7/2018. For the reasons stated above, the Petition 1 is DENIED. This matter is now terminated. See full written Order. Civil Case Terminated(VH, ilcd)
Wednesday, 07 March, 2018 02:38:44 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RODNEY A. MESSIC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01018-JES
Before the Court are the Petitioner, Rodney Messic’s, pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (D. 1), 1 the Government’s Response (D. 5), and the
Petitioner’s Reply (D. 6). For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is DENIED and this matter
The Petitioner plead guilty to two counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), and two counts of possessing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in the Southern District of Illinois. (D. 5-1 at pg. 13). The
district court sentenced him to 499 months’ imprisonment, consisting of two concurrent 115
month sentences for the bank robbery counts, and consecutive 84 month and 300 month
sentences for the firearm counts. Id. at pg. 4. The Petitioner did not file a direct appeal and this
is his first post-conviction filing. (D. 1 at pg. 10).
In January 2017, the Petitioner filed the instant Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. He
claims that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), invalidates his firearms convictions
Citations to the Docket in this case are abbreviated as “D. __.”
under § 924(c). (D. 1 at pp. 11-21). In doing so, the Petitioner admits that he is barred from
filing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Id. at pg. 5), but asserts that he is entitled to
proceed under § 2241 because any § 2255 motion he would file would be untimely (Id. at pg.
11). The Government asserts in response that the Petitioner is, inter alia, ineligible to invoke the
savings clause of § 2255(e)—which is required for him to file a petition under § 2241—and
therefore his claim fails. (D. 5 at pp. 4-5).
A § 2255 motion is subject to a one-year limitation period. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Federal
prisoners can seek habeas corpus relief under the § 2255(e) savings clause only if they had “no
reasonable opportunity to obtain earlier judicial correction of a fundamental defect in [their]
conviction or sentence because the law changed after [their] first 2255 motion.” In re
Davenport, 147 F. 3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 1998). Trial courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims
under § 2241 if a petitioner fails to demonstrate that a § 2255 motion is inadequate to test the
legality of his detention. Atehortua v. Kindt, 951 F.2d 126, 129 (7th Cir. 1991).
In the case at bar, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition. He
has failed to demonstrate that a § 2255 motion would be inadequate to test the legality of his
detention. The Petitioner argues that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 because any motion
he would file under § 2255 would be untimely. (D. 1 at pg. 11). Johnson was decided on June
26, 2015. The Petitioner filed his Petition on January 17, 2017, well after June 26, 2016.
The Petitioner’s failure to make his arguments in a timely § 2255 motion is not a
sufficient basis to entitle him to relief under the savings clause. Morales v. Bezy, 499 F.3d 668,
672 (7th Cir. 2007) (“A prisoner cannot be permitted to lever his way into section 2241 by
making his section 2255 remedy inadequate… .”) (emphasis in original). The Petitioner
concedes that his claim could have been advanced in a § 2255 motion. This makes it a legal
impossibility that a § 2255 motion was an inadequate or ineffective remedy for him. Taylor v.
Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 835-36 (7th Cir. 2002); Davenport, 147 F. 3d at 609. As a result, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his claims. Atehortua, 951 F.2d at 129.
For the reasons stated above, the Petition (D. 1) is DENIED. This matter is now
It is so ordered.
Entered on March 7, 2018
_s/ James E. Shadid_
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District 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?