Boyd v. Quintana
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART Boyd's 14 MOTION for Reconsideration; (2) the Memo Opinion & Order & Judgment dated 6/3/15 are VACATED & SET ASIDE & this case is RE-DOCKETED; (3) the clerk shall remove from this action Boy d's habeas petition filed on 2/12/15 & file it as an initial habeas petition in a new case; (4) clerk shall remove from this action Boyd's Supplemental Memo filed on 5/21/15 & re-docket it in the new case; (5) the court AFFIRMS the dismissa l of Boyd's first habeas petition; (6) Boyd's 2241 petition is DENIED; (7) this action is DISMISSED & STRICKEN from the docket; (8) judgment shall be entered in favor of Respondent.. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 9/22/15.(KJR)cc: COR, Boyd (US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Lexington)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WILLIE E. BOYD,
Petitioner,
V.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent.
***
***
Civil Action No. 5: 15-004-DCR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
***
***
This matter is pending for consideration of Petitioner Willie E. Boyd’s motion to
reconsider, alter, or amend the order dismissing his two habeas petitions filed pursuant to
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Record No. 14] Boyd’s motion to
reconsider will be granted in part because his second habeas petition filed on February 12,
2015, [Record No. 5] was erroneously docketed by the Clerk of the Court as an amended
petition instead of a new, separate habeas action. However, the motion will also be denied in
part because dismissal of the first habeas petition was proper.
I.
Boyd is an inmate confined at the Federal Medical Center located in Lexington,
Kentucky. Proceeding pro se, Boyd filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Record No. 1] In his initial petition, Boyd claimed he did not have the
requisite number of prior “violent felony” convictions to warrant an enhanced sentence under
the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). Id. Accordingly, Boyd requested that his
-1-
judgment be vacated and that he be resentenced “without the status of an Armed Career
Offender, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).” [Record No. 1, p. 15]
Prior to initial screening of the first petition, on February 12, 2015, Boyd filed a
second petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Record No. 5] In the second petition
(docketed by the Clerk as an amended petition), Boyd challenged the legality of his
underlying conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e); and false representation of a Social Security number in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 4089a)(7). See United States v. Willie E. Boyd, No. 4:97-cr-301 (E.D. Mo.
1996) [Record No. 1 therein]. In his second petition, Boyd asks the Court to “dismiss all
counts of the indictment and order a new trial, or dismiss the indictment with prejudice for
the Government’s egregious misconduct.” [Record No. 5, p. 76]
Upon the initial screening, the Court denied both of Boyd’s habeas petitions [Record
Nos. 1 and 5] by Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Memo Opinion”) dated June 3, 2015.
[Record No. 11] The Memo Opinion explains that a § 2241 petition is not the proper
mechanism for relief from the imposition of an enhanced sentence. Id.
On June 11, 2015, Boyd filed a motion to reconsider, alter, or amend the Memo
Opinion dismissing his habeas petitions. [Record No. 14] He specifically challenges the
classification of his second petition as an “amended petition” as well as the Court’s dismissal
of his petitions upon initial screening. Id.
-2-
II.
A litigant may not use a Rule 59(e) motion to reargue the merits of his case or restate
arguments already presented. See Whitehead v. Bowen, 301 F. App’x 484, 489 (6th Cir.
2008); Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.
1998). Accordingly, a court may grant relief under Rule 59(e) only to: (1) correct a clear
error of law; (2) account for newly discovered evidence; (3) accommodate an intervening
change in controlling law; or (4) prevent manifest injustice. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky.
v. McCreary Cnty., Ky., 607 F.3d 439, 450 (6th Cir. 2010); Besser v. Sepanak, 478 F. App’x
1001, 1001-02 (6th Cir. 2012).
III.
A.
Classification of Boyd’s February 12, 2015 Petition
According to Boyd’s recent motion, the Court erred by docketing his February 12,
2015 filing as an amended petition.
[Record No. 14]
Boyd is correct regarding this
argument. Boyd did not caption the second petition as an “amended” or “supplemental”
petition, nor did he file an accompanying motion to amend the original petition. [Record No.
5] Instead, his cover letter identifies the second petition as an “Initial Filing of § 2241
petition” [Record No. 5-1], and the first and second petitions seek different forms of relief
for different reasons. In his first petition, Boyd claimed that the sentencing court erroneously
classified him as an Armed Career Offender under the ACCA. [Record No. 1] In his second
petition, Boyd claimed that he is “actually innocent” under McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct.
1924 (2013), of the offenses for which he was convicted in the Eastern District of Missouri
in 1997. [Record No. 5] The second petition did not reference the first petition nor mention
-3-
the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the ACCA. Id. Given the differences in the
two petitions, it appears that Boyd did not intend for the February 12, 2015 filing to amend
or supplement the first petition. Therefore, the second petition should be re-docketed as an
initial habeas petition and classified as a completely new case.
In its June 3, 2015 Memo Opinion, the Court also treated the February 12, 2015
petition as an amended petition instead of evaluating it on its own merits. [Record No. 11]
Therefore, the parts of the Memo Opinion and the accompanying Judgment that dismiss the
second petition will be vacated. [Record Nos. 11 and 12]
B.
Dismissal of Boyd’s First Petition
To the extent that Boyd seeks to alter or amend the Court’s dismissal of his first
petition, Boyd’s motion will be denied. Upon reconsideration, the Court finds that dismissal
of Boyd’s first petition was and is proper. In that petition, Boyd sought relief from the
enhanced sentence he received under the ACCA by relying on Logan v. United States, 552
U.S. 23, 128 S.Ct. 475 (2007), and Persaud v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014). As
explained in greater detail in the June 3, 2015 Mem Opinion, the Supreme Court has not
announced that its holding in Logan applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. See
Townsend v. Davis, 83 F. App’x 728, 729 (6th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the Court reaffirms its
holding that Logan does not support Boyd’s argument against his enhanced sentence.
Further, Boyd’s reliance on Persaud remains premature. Following remand from the
Fourth Circuit, Persaud is still pending before the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina. See United States of America v. Ian Andre Persaud, No.
3:01-cr-036-FDW [Record No. 348]. Boyd failed to demonstrate in his first petition that he
-4-
is entitled to proceed under § 2241, and Boyd’s motion for reconsideration does not present
any new arguments that warrant relief under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Therefore, dismissal of Boyd’s first petition will be affirmed.
IV.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.
Petitioner Willie E. Boyd’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of his case or to
alter or amend the decision [Record No. 14] is GRANTED, IN PART.
2.
The Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 3, 2015 [Record No. 11] and
the Judgment dated June 3, 2015 [Record No. 12] are VACATED and SET ASIDE, and this
case is RE-DOCKETED.
3.
The Clerk of the Court shall remove from this action Boyd’s habeas petition
filed on February 12, 2015, and docketed as an amended petition. [Record No. 5] The Clerk
shall then reclassify Boyd’s February 12, 2015 filing as an initial habeas petition in a new
case, to be identified with a new case number, and to be assigned randomly to a district
judge, per standing order.
4.
The Clerk of the Court shall remove from this action Boyd’s Supplemental
Memorandum filed on May 21, 2015 [Record No. 10] in support of his habeas petition filed
on February 12, 2015 [Record No. 5]. The Clerk shall then re-docket the Supplemental
Memorandum in the new case with Boyd’s February 12, 2015 petition.
5.
Upon reconsideration, the Court AFFIRMS the dismissal of Boyd’s first
habeas petition [Record Nos. 1 and 3].
-5-
6.
Petitioner Willie E. Boyd’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, as supplemented [Record Nos. 1 and 3] is DENIED.
7.
This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
8.
Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion
and Order in favor of the named Respondent.
This 22nd day of September, 2015.
-6-
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?