WEATHERS v. LOCKETT et al

Filing 11

ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Based on this Entry, Weathers' petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied and this action must be dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 11/7/2011.(NKD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

STACY L. WEATHERS,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHARLES LOCKETT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-053-WTL-WGH

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Having considered the pleadings and the expanded record in this action brought
by Stacy Weathers seeking a writ of habeas corpus, and being duly advised, the court
finds that Weathers’ petition must be denied. This conclusion is based on the following
facts and circumstances:
1.
Weathers is confined in this District serving the executed portion of a
sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
in EV 06-34-CR-01-Y/H, wherein he was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
and 924(e).
2.
Weathers seeks habeas corpus relief based on his contention that he was
improperly sentenced as an armed career criminal.
3.
The expanded record shows that Weathers and the United States
submitted a plea agreement in the underlying criminal action, that the plea agreement
was accepted by the court, and that the plea agreement provided, in part, that “in
exchange for the concessions made by the United States . . . STACY L. WEATHERS
expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed on any ground
. . . [and additionally] expressly agrees not to contest his conviction and sentence or the
manner in which his conviction and sentence were determined in any collateral attack,
including, but not limited to, an action brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section
2255.”

4.
Weathers was sentenced on August 10, 2007. He did not appeal the
disposition of the case.
5.
A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the presumptive means by which
a federal prisoner can challenge his conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States,
417 U.S. 333, 343 (1974); United States v. Bezy, 499 F.3d 668, 670 (7th Cir. 2007). A §
2241 petition by a federal prisoner is generally limited to challenges to the execution of
the sentence. Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998); Atehortua v.
Kindt, 951 F.2d 126, 129 (7th Cir. 1991).
a.
However, a petition challenging the conviction may be brought pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 only if § 2255 “would not . . . be[ ] adequate to test the legality of
the conviction and sentence.” Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 858 (7th Cir.
2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
b.
A remedy via § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the]
detention” when a legal theory that could not have been presented under § 2255
establishes the petitioner's actual innocence. In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th
Cir. 1998). “A procedure for post conviction relief can fairly be termed inadequate
when it is so configured as to deny a convicted defendant any opportunity for
judicial rectification of so fundamental a defect in his conviction as having been
imprisoned for a nonexistent offense.” Id. at 611. It is the inmate's burden to show
that a § 2241 remedy is the proper one. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th
Cir. 2001). “The essential point is that a prisoner is entitled to one unencumbered
opportunity to receive a decision on the merits.” Potts v. United States, 210 F.3d
770 (7th Cir. 2000).
6.
Weathers did not challenge his enhanced sentence via an action for relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He has alluded to such a procedure being unavailable to
him, but does not show that a § 2255 remedy would have been inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his enhanced sentence.
7.
Even if Weathers had met the burden referred to above, the waiver
provision of the plea agreement is clear, is valid, and is sufficiently broad in scope to
preclude the present challenge. Weathers has not argued otherwise.
Based on the foregoing, therefore, Weathers’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
denied and this action must be dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now
issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11/07/2011
Date: _________________

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana