KAMINSKI v. LOCKETT
Filing
13
ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (copy to petitioner via US Mail) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/19/2012.(SMD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ADAM KAMINSKI,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHARLES L. LOCKETT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-118-JMS-WGH
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Adam Kaminski (“Kaminski”) is confined in this District and seeks a writ of
habeas corpus with respect to his conviction entered in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Whereupon the court, having considered the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, the United States’ response and Kaminski's reply, and being duly
advised, now finds that the relief sought by the petitioner must be denied and that
the action must be dismissed. This conclusion rests on the following facts and
circumstances:
1.
Kaminski is serving the executed portion of the sentence imposed in
No. 3:07-CR-0529-001 on March 25, 2009. His claim is that his conviction, including
aspects of his enhanced sentence, is infirm.
2.
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). 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); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
3.
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.
“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.
b.
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).
4.
Kaminski pled guilty to the underlying offenses pursuant to a plea
agreement. His direct appeal was dismissed, see United States v. Kaminski, 364
Fed. Appx. 303 (8th Cir. 2010), and no motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 has been filed.
5.
No circumstances identified by Kaminski render a remedy pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the] detention.”
The savings clause of § 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) is thus not available to him for the
purpose of attacking his underlying conviction and sentence. His petition for a writ
of habeas corpus is therefore denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall
now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
11/19/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Adam Kaminski, Reg. No. 11018-424, Terre Haute–USP, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O.
Box 33, Terre Haute, IN 47808
Electronically Registered Counsel
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?