Battista v. Quintana
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
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Civil Action No. 15-202-JMH
David Battista is an inmate confined at the Federal Medical
Center in Lexington, Kentucky.
Proceeding without an attorney,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
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.”
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases
Battista’s petition under a more lenient standard because he is
not represented by an attorney.
89, 94 (2007).
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
At this stage of the proceedings, the Court
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
distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.
In exchange for the dismissal of
the conspiracy count, on December 5, 2013, Dr. Battista agreed
to plead guilty to the two distribution counts.
In the plea
sentence to be imposed for the charges to which he was pleading
ranging from three years to life.
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
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.
United States v. Battista,
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.
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.
Instead, when a federal prisoner wishes to challenge
his conviction or sentence, he must file a motion for postconviction
convicted and sentenced him.
1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 2003).
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).
permit a prisoner to challenge the validity of his conviction in
a habeas corpus proceeding under § 2241, but only in the rare
Truss v. Davis, 115 F. App’x 772, 773-74 (6th Cir.
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
Copeland v. Hemingway, 36 F. App’x 793, 795 (6th
Cir. 2002); Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir. 2002)
(§ 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
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
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.”).
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:
David Battista’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is DENIED.
This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
contemporaneously with this Order.
This 16th day of September, 2015.
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?