Watkins v. Krueger
Filing
10
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 8/24/2018. Watkins' Second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER & OPINION. (JS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 24 August, 2018 10:56:15 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
SHANE T. WATKINS,
Petitioner,
v.
J E KRUEGER,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 18-cv-1183
ORDER & OPINION
This matter is before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) filed by Shane T. Watkins. The petition has been fully
briefed. For the reasons stated below, the petition is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
DISCUSSION
The Court will only briefly discuss Watkins’ background because it is clear,
without diving into the merits, that he cannot bring this petition. On April 22, 2004,
a grand jury indicted Watkins with knowingly possessing more than 50 grams of a
substance and mixture containing cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(A) and § 841(b)(1)(A). United States v. Watkins, 04cr-10037 (C.D. Ill. 2005) (Docs. 1, 38). On May 3, 2004, the Government filed a notice
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 of its intent to use evidence of Watkins’ prior convictions
to enhance his sentence. Id. (Doc. 6). The convictions noticed by the Government were
a (1) 1996 conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in
Macon County, Illinois, (2) 1998 conviction for delivery of a controlled substance in
Peoria County, Illinois, and (3) 2001 conviction of possession of a controlled substance
in the Central District of Illinois. Id. On December 8, 2004, a jury found Watkins
guilty. Id. (Doc. 43). Watkins was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment based
on his prior felony convictions. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
United States v. Watkins, 175 F. App'x 53, 54 (7th Cir. 2006).
On November 18, 2016, Watkins filed his first Petition for Writ Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Watkins v. Krueger, 16-cv-1447 (C.D. Ill. 2018). In relevant
part, he argued that under Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), his prior
drug convictions no longer qualify as “controlled substance offenses,” and therefore
may not serve as predicate offenses to support a mandatory life sentence. Id. (Doc. 1
at 12).
On January 18, 2018, Judge Shadid denied Watkins’ petition, noting that
challenges to an erroneous career offender designation are not cognizable on
collateral review. Id. (Doc. 18 at 3). Furthermore, Judge Shadid held that Watkins’
prior convictions satisfy the broad definition of “felony drug offense” under 21 U.S.C.
§ 802(44) and therefore were properly used to enhance Watkins’ sentence. Id.
Now, Watkins attempts to file another § 2241 petition raising the same Mathis
claim. Watkins argues that Mathis means his prior Illinois narcotic drug offenses no
longer qualify as “felony drug offenses” under § 802(44). As previously explained,
Judge Shadid disagreed and held that Watkins’ prior convictions satisfy 802(44)’s
definition of “felony drug offense.” Watkins does not get to re-litigate the issue before
this Court simply because he disagrees with Judge Shadid’s determination.
Furthermore, to the extent Watkins attempts to raise new arguments based
2
on Mathis, the Government raises the affirmative defense of abuse of writ. A
petitioner abuses the federal writ of habeas corpus “by raising a claim in a
subsequent petition that he could have raised in his first, regardless of whether the
failure to raise it earlier stemmed from a deliberate choice.” McCleskey v. Zant, 499
U.S. 467, 489 (1991). By filing the instant petition, Watkins is abusing the writ of
habeas corpus because any claim based on Mathis was available to Watkins when he
filed his first § 2241 petition in late 2016. His petition must therefore be dismissed
with prejudice. Arnaout v. Marberry, 351 F. App'x 143, 145 (7th Cir. 2009) (second
habeas petition was an abuse of writ and thus properly dismissed with prejudice).
In any event, Watkins cannot bring an independent Mathis claim in a § 2241
petition. Federal prisoners who wish to collaterally attack their convictions or
sentences ordinarily must do so under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638,
640 (7th Cir. 2012). Federal inmates may file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only
in the rare circumstance in which the remedy provided under § 2255 “is inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (often
referred to as “the Savings Clause”).
Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective only if the following three
requirements are met: “(1) the petitioner must rely on a [Supreme Court] case of
statutory interpretation (because invoking such a case cannot secure authorization
for a second § 2255 motion); (2) the new rule must be previously unavailable and
apply retroactively; and (3) the error asserted must be grave enough to be deemed a
miscarriage of justice, such as the conviction of an innocent defendant.” Davis v.
Cross, 863 F.3d 962, 964 (7th Cir. 2017).
3
The Seventh Circuit suggested in Dawkins v. United States, 829 F.3d 549, 551
(7th Cir. 2016), that an “independent claim based on Mathis” could be brought, “if at
all, in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (emphasis added). Yet, the Supreme Court
in Mathis explicitly held that its longstanding precedent resolved the case, and that
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600-01 (1990) “set out the essential rule
governing ACCA cases more than a quarter century ago.” Mathis, 136 S.Ct. at 2251.
While this Court has held that independent Mathis claims cannot be brought
in a § 2241 petition because Mathis is not a new rule, Robinson v. Krueger, No. 1701187, 2017 WL 2407253, at *5 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2017); Cox v. Kallis, No. 17-1243,
2018 WL 2994378, at *3 (C.D. Ill. June 14, 2018), reconsideration denied, No. 171243, 2018 WL 3232771 (C.D. Ill. July 2, 2018), district courts in the Seventh Circuit
are admittedly split on the issue, compare Wadlington v. Werlich, No. 17-CV-449,
2017 WL 3055039, at *3 (S.D. Ill. July 17, 2017) (reasoning that Mathis satisfied the
first two requirements to bring a § 2241 petition); and Winters v. Krueger, No.
217CV00386, 2018 WL 2445554, at *2 (S.D. Ind. May 31, 2018) (same); with Neff v.
Williams, No. 16-CV-749, 2017 WL 3575255, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 17, 2017) (Mathis
“merely reaffirmed its 1990 holding in Taylor”).
In line with the Supreme Court’s language in Mathis and this Court’s prior
decisions in Robinson and Cox, the Court concludes that Mathis is not a new rule and
therefore cannot satisfy the second requirement for filing a § 2241 petition.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Watkins’ Second Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
4
Entered this 24th day of August, 2018.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
5
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?