Battista v. Quintana

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) DENYING petitioner's 1 Petition for a writ of habeas corpus; (2) action is STRICKEN from the docket; (3) court will enter a judgment. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 9/16/15.(KJR)cc: COR, Battista (US Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
DAVID BATTISTA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
V.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent.
***

***

Civil Action No. 15-202-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

***

***

David Battista is an inmate confined at the Federal Medical
Center in Lexington, Kentucky.
Battista

has

filed

a

Proceeding without an attorney,

petition

for

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

a

[R. 1]

writ

of

habeas

corpus

The Court conducts an

initial review of habeas corpus petitions.

28 U.S.C. § 2243;

Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545
(6th Cir. 2011).
A petition will be denied “if it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief.”
in

the

United

petitions

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases

States

pursuant

to

District
Rule

Courts
1(b)).

(applicable
The

Court

to

§ 2241

evaluates

Battista’s petition under a more lenient standard because he is
not represented by an attorney.
89, 94 (2007).
accepts

the

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court

petitioner’s

factual
1

allegations

as

true

and

construes all legal claims in his favor.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
On August 7, 2013, Dr. Battista was indicted by a federal
grand

jury

sitting

in

Atlanta,

Georgia,

of

conspiracy

to

distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
and

two

counts

of

distributing

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.

controlled

substances

in

In exchange for the dismissal of

the conspiracy count, on December 5, 2013, Dr. Battista agreed
to plead guilty to the two distribution counts.
agreement,

Dr.

Battista

acknowledged

that

as

In the plea
part

of

the

sentence to be imposed for the charges to which he was pleading
guilty,

the

Court

would

impose

ranging from three years to life.

terms

of

supervised

release

On March 31, 2014, the trial

court sentenced Dr. Battista to two concurrent 46-month terms of
imprisonment to be followed by two concurrent 10-year terms of
supervised release.

Dr. Battista did not file a direct appeal

from his conviction or a motion to alter or vacate it under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 in light of his express waiver of his right to do
so as part of his plea agreement.
No.

1:

13-CR-307-SCJ-AJB-1

(N.D.

United States v. Battista,
Ga.

2013)

[R.

1,

29,

36

therein].
In his petition, Dr. Battista contends that the 10-year
terms of supervised release are excessive and violate 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553 and/or his due process rights.
2

Petitioner requests that

the Court reduce his supervised release terms to two years in
the interest of justice.

[R. 1 at 6-7, 9]

The Court must deny Battista’s petition because he may not
assert these claims in a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.

Instead, when a federal prisoner wishes to challenge

his conviction or sentence, he must file a motion for postconviction

relief

under

28

U.S.C.

convicted and sentenced him.
1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 2003).

§ 2255

in

the

court

that

Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d
The prisoner may not use a habeas

corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for this purpose,
as it does not constitute an additional or alternative remedy to
the one available under § 2255.

Hernandez v. Lamanna, 16 F.

App’x 317, 320 (6th Cir. 2001).
The

“savings

clause”

found

in

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255(e)

will

permit a prisoner to challenge the validity of his conviction in
a habeas corpus proceeding under § 2241, but only in the rare
circumstance
“inadequate
detention.
2004).

where
or

the

remedy

ineffective”

to

afforded
test

by

the

§ 2255(a)

legality

of

is
his

Truss v. Davis, 115 F. App’x 772, 773-74 (6th Cir.

This

standard

is

not

satisfied

merely

because

the

prisoner’s time to file a § 2255 motion has passed; he did not
file a § 2255 motion; or he did file such a motion and was
denied relief.

Copeland v. Hemingway, 36 F. App’x 793, 795 (6th

Cir. 2002); Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir. 2002)
3

(§ 2241 available “only when a structural problem in § 2255
forecloses even one round of effective collateral review ...”).
Nor is the remedy available under § 2255 considered “inadequate
or ineffective” where, as here, the petitioner waived his right
to seek relief under that provision as part of a plea agreement.
Muller v. Sauers, 523 F. App’x 110, 112 (3d Cir. 2013).
Dr. Battista’s claims are also not the type of “actual
innocence” claims permitted under the savings clause. Such a
claim

can

arise

only

where,

after

the

prisoner’s

conviction

became final, the Supreme Court re-interprets the substantive
terms of the criminal statute under which he was convicted in a
manner that establishes that his conduct did not violate the
statute.

Hayes v. Holland, 473 F. App’x 501, 501-02 (6th Cir.

2012) (“To date, the savings clause has only been applied to
claims of actual innocence based upon Supreme Court decisions
announcing new rules of statutory construction unavailable for
attack under section 2255.”); United States v. Prevatte, 300
F.3d 792, 800-801 (7th Cir. 2002).

Dr. Battista’s objection to

the sentence imposed is not a claim that he is actually innocent
of the underlying offense.

Brown v. Hogsten, 503 F. App’x 342,

343 (6th Cir. 2012) (noting that “claims of sentencing error may
not serve as the basis for an actual innocence claim.”).

4

Because Dr. Battista has not properly invoked the savings
clause of § 2255(e), the Court must deny his petition under §
2241 for lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

David Battista’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is DENIED.
2.

This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.

3.

The

Court

will

enter

contemporaneously with this Order.
This 16th day of September, 2015.

5

an

appropriate

judgment