Antoine v. True

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/26/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LESLIE DAVID ANTOINE,
#10311-040
Petitioner,
vs.
B. TRUE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17 cv–915 DRH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Petitioner Leslie Antoine, who is currently incarcerated in the Federal
Correctional Institution in Marion, Illinois, filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). In the Petition, he argues that his
federal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) should be vacated because 18 U.S.C.
§ 2241 was enacted in violation of Article I of the Constitution and thus is invalid.
(Doc. 1).
Background
Petitioner was convicted in 2001 of aggravated sexual abuse in the Western
District of Michigan. United States v. Antoine, No. 1:00-cr-00272-JTN-1 (W.D.
Mich. Sept. 17, 2001). He was sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment in the
custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Id. Petitioner appealed his conviction
to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appeal was dismissed and his
sentence and conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2241 were not overturned. Id. at
1

Docs. 43, 48. Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to challenge his conviction ever
since. He filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan. See Antoine v. United States, No. 15-cv-909-JTN (W.D. Mich. Sept. 9,
2015).

United States v. Antoine, No. 1:00-cr-

This action was unsuccessful.

00272-JTN-1 at Doc. 54. He appealed the denial of his § 2255 petition to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but this action was also unsuccessful. See id. at
Doc. 57.

Finally, he petitioned for a writ of certiorari with the United States

Supreme Court, but this petition was also denied. See id. at Doc. 59.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in United States District
Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge,
“[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules
gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas cases.

After

carefully reviewing DeCarlo’s Petition, the Court concludes that DeCarlo is not
entitled to relief and that his Petition must be dismissed.
Discussion
Normally, a person may challenge his federal conviction only by means of a
motion brought before the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and
this remedy normally supersedes the writ of habeas corpus. A § 2241 petition by
a federal prisoner is generally limited to challenges to the execution of the

2

sentence. Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998); Atehortua

v. Kindt, 951 F.2d 126, 129 (7th Cir. 1991). Federal prisoners may utilize §
2241, however, to challenge the legality of a conviction or sentence in cases under
the “savings clause” of § 2255(e). The savings clause allows a petitioner to bring a
claim under § 2241, where he can show that a remedy under § 2255 is inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Id. See also United States v.

Prevatte, 300 F.3d 792, 798-99 (7th Cir. 2002).
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that § 2255 is only
inadequate or ineffective when three requirements are satisfied: 1) the petitioner
relies on a new case of statutory interpretation rather than a constitutional
decision; 2) the case was decided after his first § 2255 motion but is retroactive;
and 3) the alleged error results in a miscarriage of justice. See Brown v. Caraway,
719 F.3d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 2013); Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir.
2012). “‘Inadequate or ineffective’ means that ‘a legal theory that could not have
been presented under § 2255 establishes the petitioner’s actual innocence.’” Hill

v. Werlinger, 695 F.3d 644, 648 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d
832, 835 (7th Cir. 2002)); In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1998)).
The grounds advanced by Petitioner do not rely on a change in the law that
occurred after his § 2255 motion was denied.

In fact, he brought the same

arguments he brings in the instant Petition in his § 2255 motion. His § 2255
motion on this issue was denied because it “was not filed within one year of the
date ‘on which the facts supporting [his] claim . . . could have been discovered,’”

3

since Petitioner “refers to actions . . . that occurred thirty years ago” and “[t]he
legislators’ actions are a matter of public record that would have been
discoverable at the time of Antoine’s conviction in 2001.”

(Doc. 1, pp. 10-11)

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4)). Petitioner has therefore not met the requirements
for bringing a § 2241 petition under the savings clause.
Leslie David Antoine’s Petition for habeas relief pursuant to § 2241 is
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.10.26
14:41:50 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4