Boyd v. Quintana

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Boyd's 28 USC 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. (2) Boyd's 7 MOTION to Expedite the Proceedings is DENIED AS MOOT. (3) Boyd's 8 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. (4) This action is DISMISSED AND STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. (5) Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this memorandum opinion. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on February 29, 2016. (AWD) cc: Petitioner via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON

WILLIE E. BOYD,

)
)
) Civil Action No. 5:15-288-JMH
)
)
)
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA,
Respondent.
****

****

****

****

This matter is before the court upon Willie E. Boyd’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [DE 1].
Boyd has also moved the court to expedite the proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1657, [DE 7], and for an evidentiary hearing, [DE
8].

For the following reasons, his petition and motions will be

denied.
On August 7, 1997, Boyd was charged in a four-count indictment
with possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation
of

21

U.S.C.

§§

841(a)(1)

and

(b)(1)(c),

being

a

felon

in

possession of a firearm in violation of 922(g)(1) and 924(e), and
false representation of a Social Security number in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7).
301 (E.D. Mo. 1996).

See United States v. Boyd, No. 4:97-crA superseding indictment was subsequently

returned against Boyd with charges involving reports on domestic
coins and currency transactions in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313,

5324 and criminal forfeiture in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1).
Id.

Boyd elected to proceed to a bench trial and was found guilty

of nine of the ten counts on April 16, 1998.

He was sentenced to

a term of imprisonment of 276 months, followed by a six-year term
of supervised release.

The United States Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit affirmed Boyd’s conviction and sentence.

United

States v. Boyd, 180 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 1999).
Boyd subsequently filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied.
4:00-cv-985 (E.D. Mo. 2000).

See United States v. Boyd, No.

The Eighth Circuit denied Boyd’s

motion for a certificate of appealability.

On January 1, 2015,

while serving his sentence at the Federal Medical Center in
Lexington, Kentucky, Boyd filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in this court.

See No. 5:15-cv-4-DCR. That petition

was denied on September 22, 2015. While Boyd’s petition of January
1st was still pending, he filed an additional petition under §
2241 on February 12, 2015.

See No. 5:15-cv-4-DCR, DE 5.

That

petition was stricken from Action No. 15-cv-4 and docketed as a
separate case in the above-captioned action.
The court conducts an initial review of habeas petitions
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

Alexander v. N. Bureau of Prisons,

419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011).

“[I]f it appears from the

[filing] and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief,” the court will deny the petition.
2 

The court

applies Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
States

District

Courts—these

petitions under Rule 1(b).

rules

are

applicable

to

§

2241

The court views Boyd’s petition under

a more lenient standard, as he is not represented by counsel and
takes

his

factual

allegations

as

true.

construes all legal claims in his favor.

Further,

the

court

See Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007).
In his current petition, Boyd challenges counts 1 through 8
and count 10 of his convictions.

Specifically, he raises the

issues of “illegal search and seizure; the court’s finding of
constructive

possession;

the

prosecutorial misconduct.”

refusal

to

sever

charges;

and

He claims that he discovered new

evidence, after his trial, which casts doubt on the credibility of
the government’s witnesses and proves that the government obtained
his convictions based on false testimony.

Relying on McQuiggin v.

Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013), Boyd argues that he is entitled to
bring his § 2241 petition pursuant to the “savings clause” of §
2255 based on his claim of “actual innocence.”

A defendant may

only pursue a claim of actual innocence under § 2241, however,
when that claim is “based upon a new rule of law made retroactive
by a Supreme Court case.”
(6th Cir. 2003).
conviction

Townsend v. Davis, 83 F. App’x 728, 729

Such claims arise only when, after a prisoner’s

becomes

final,

the

Supreme

Court

re-interprets

a

criminal statute in a way that establishes that the prisoner’s
3 

conduct did not violate the statute.
App’x 501, 501–02 (6th Cir. 2012).

Hayes v. Holland, 473 F.

“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.”

Id.

Boyd’s challenge to his convictions is not predicated upon a newlydecided Supreme Court decision interpreting the terms of the
statutes of his conviction and, therefore, does not fall within
this narrow range of cases.
Further, habeas relief may be sought under § 2241 only where
the remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to obtain
the relief that petitioner seeks.

If Boyd has obtained evidence

sufficient to demonstrate that he is actually innocent of federal
crimes of which he was convicted, McQuiggin would provide an avenue
of seeking relief under § 2255. The proper procedure for a federal
prisoner who claims that newly discovered evidence demonstrates
his innocence is to seek permission to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion in the sentencing court.

See § 2255(h).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Boyd’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas

corpus is denied, [DE 1], is DENIED;
(2)

Boyd’s motion to expedite the proceedings, [DE 7] is

DENIED AS MOOT;

4 

(3)

Boyd’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, [DE 8] is

DENIED;
(4)

This action is DISMISSED AND STRICKEN from the court’s

active docket; and
(5)

Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this

memorandum opinion.
This the 29th day of February, 2016.

5