Boyd v. Quintana
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
WILLIE E. BOYD,
) Civil Action No. 5:15-288-JMH
) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
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
For the following reasons, his petition and motions will be
On August 7, 1997, Boyd was charged in a four-count indictment
with possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation
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).
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.
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.
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.
applies Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
petitions under Rule 1(b).
The court views Boyd’s petition under
a more lenient standard, as he is not represented by counsel and
construes all legal claims in his favor.
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
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).
Townsend v. Davis, 83 F. App’x 728, 729
Such claims arise only when, after a prisoner’s
criminal statute in a way that establishes that the prisoner’s
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
construction unavailable for attack under section 2255.”
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:
Boyd’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is denied, [DE 1], is DENIED;
Boyd’s motion to expedite the proceedings, [DE 7] is
DENIED AS MOOT;
Boyd’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, [DE 8] is
This action is DISMISSED AND STRICKEN from the court’s
active docket; and
Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this
This the 29th day of February, 2016.
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?