Lucas v. Berkebile
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Petitioner Tylan Jovan Lucas' petition for a writ of habeas corpus D.E. No. 2 is DENIED. 2. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 6/19/12.(MJY)cc: COR, Lucas via US Mail.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION AT PIKEVILLE
TYLAN JOVAN LUCAS,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN D. BERKEBILE,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 7:11-00028-HRW
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
**** **** **** ****
Tylan Jovan Lucas is a prisoner in the United States Penitentiary in Pollock,
Louisiana. When he was incarcerated at the federal penitentiary in Inez, Kentucky, Lucas
petitioned the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to vacate
his conviction and sentence. [D. E. No.2] Lucas argues that during his criminal trial the
government failed to produce sufficient evidence that he possessed a firearm in furtherance
of a conspiracy; the trial court imposed a two-level enhancement for obstruction ofjustice
notwithstanding the jury's finding to the contrary; and the trial court failed to adequately
address his ineffective assistance ofcounsel claims when it denied his motion for reliefunder
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The Court reviews habeas petitions filed under Section 2241 to determine whether the
petition and its exhibits establish viable grounds for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Alexander v.
Northern Bureau o/Prisons, 419 F. App'x 544,545 (6th Cir. 2011). Because Lucas is not
represented by an attorney, the petition is reviewed under a more lenient standard. Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003). At
this stage the Court accepts the petitioner's factual allegations as true and his legal claims are
liberally construed in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
(2007). Once that review is complete, the Court may deny habeas relief"ifit 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 in the United States District Courts (applicable to
§ 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)). Otherwise, the Court may resolve the petition as law
and justice require. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987).
BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2005, a federal jury in Nebraska convicted Lucas of various drug
trafficking and fireanns offenses, including possessing a fireann (a Ruger revolver) in
furtherance ofa drug trafficking crime (Count II) and obstruction ofjustice (Count VI). The
district court enhanced Lucas sentence pursuant to the Notice of Infonnation filed by the
government pursuant to 21 U.S.c. § 851 and ordered him to serve a cumulative 295 month
term of imprisonment. United States v. Lucas, No. 8:04-CR-00044-LSC (D. Neb. 2004).
On direct appeal, a panel ofthe Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court should
have granted Lucas's motion to suppress because the Nebraska Corrections Director who
signed his arrest warrant was not a neutral and detached magistrate. United States v. Lucas,
451 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2006). But the Eighth Circuit sitting as a whole reversed that decision
and affinned the district court's judgment on the suppression issue. The Court of Appeals
further held that the district court properly admitted evidence of past drug dealing and gun
possession under Rule 404(b) and that the government produced sufficient evidence to
support conviction on the obstruction ofjustice charge. United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769
(8th Cir. 2007), cert denied, 552 U.S. 1281 (2008).
Lucas then moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting numerous
grounds for relief. The trial court addressed each ofLucas's claims and denied the motion.
Of particular relevance here, the court held that Lucas's counsel was not constitutionally
ineffective in any respect; that it had properly enhanced his sentence based upon the prior
convictions identified in the government's Section 851 notice; and that Lucas could not
collaterally attack his prior state convictions when he was represented by counsel during his
state court trial. United States v. Lucas, 2009 WL 914246, at *2-3 (D. Neb. March 30, 2009).
The Eighth Circuit denied Lucas's initial and subsequent requests for a certificate of
appealability.
In his current petition, Lucas challenges the sufficiency ofthe government's evidence
that he possessed a Ruger revolver, the trial court's enhancement of his sentence for
I
obstruction of justice, and the adequacy of its grounds to deny his motion for relief under
Section 2255.
DISCUSSION
The Court will deny Lucas's petition because habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
is not an available mechanism to pursue his claims under these circumstances. Section
2255(a) provides the primary avenue of relief for federal prisoners claiming the right to
release as a result of an unlawful sentence. Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442,447 (6th
Cir. 2009). It is the method which must be used to collaterally attack errors that occurred "at
or prior to sentencing." Eaves v. United States, No.4: 10-cv-00036, 2010 WL at 3283018, at
* 6 (E.D. Tenn., August 17,2010).
The "savings clause" set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) pennits a defendant to pursue
habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only where the remedy under Section 2255(a) is
"inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention." Terrell, 564 F.3d at 447;
Witham v. United States, 355 F.3d 501, 505 (6th Cir. 2004). This safety valve is not
available to a federal prisoner "if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief,
by [§ 2255] motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied relief."
Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999); Martin v. Perez, 319 F.3d 799, 803s
(6th Cir. 2003).
Lucas's claims do not fall within this narrow exception. First and foremost, "[t]he
only claim that this court has recognized as cognizable under § 2241 is a claim of actual
innocence based upon a new rule oflaw made retroactive by a Supreme Court case, such as
the claim raised in the case of Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133
L.Ed.2d 472 (1995)." Townsend v. Davis, 83 F. App'x 728 (6th Cir. 2003). Lucas points to
no such decision upon which to predicate relief. United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d at 461
62; Charles, 180 F.3d at 757.
Second, Lucas's claims challenging the enhancement of his sentence based on prior
state convictions and obstruction ofjustice, as well as his claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, were asserted and rejected in his Section 2255 motion. United States v. Lucas, 2009
WL 914246, at *2-3 (D. Neb. March 30, 2009). Section 2241 is not an available to a
petitioner who merely wishes to reargue claims considered and rejected in a prior motion
under Section 2255. Charles, 180 F.3d at 756 ("Significantly, the § 2255 remedy is not
considered inadequate or ineffective simply because § 2255 reliefhas already been denied.")
Third, Lucas's challenge to the enhancement of his sentence, as opposed to his
conviction, is not cognizable under Section 2241 ; federal courts have not extended the reach
of the savings clause to petitioners who challenge only their sentence. United States v.
Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 462 (6th Cir. 2001) (Section 2241 petitioner must demonstrate
innocence of the underlying offense, not a mere sentencing factor); Johnson v. Cauley, No.
09-CV-52-HRW (E.D. Ky. 2009) aff'd, No. 09-5991 (6th Cir. July 9, 2010); see also United
States v. Poole, 531 F .3d 263,267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008); Wyattv. United States, 574 F.3d 455,
460 (7th Cir. 2009).
Finally, Lucas's claims appear to be substantively without merit. Lucas contends that
the government failed to produce sufficient evidence that he possessed the Ruger revolver
to convict him ofeither the drug conspiracy charge or to impose a two level enhancement for
obstruction ofjustice. [D. E. No.2, p. 5] . But the Eighth Circuit held otherwise, concluding
that the district properly admitted evidence of Lucas' past drug dealing and gun possession
under Federal Rule ofEvidence 404(b) to establish motive, intent, plan and design in relation
to the drug and firearm charges, and that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a
conviction for obstruction of justice. Lucas, 499 F.3d at 780-81. A federal court in a
post-conviction proceeding can rely on the factual conclusions made by an appellate court
in the same case. Smith v. Snyder, 22 F. App'x 552,553 (6th Cir. 2001); Myers v. United
States, 198 F.3d 615, 619 (6th Cir. 1999). In light of the Eighth Circuit's findings on these
issues on direct appeal, Lucas can not demonstrate that he is "actually innocent" of the
Section 924(c) fireann and obstruction ofjustice offenses of which the jury convicted him.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Petitioner Tylan Jovan Lucas' petition for a writ of habeas corpus [D. E. No.
2] is DENIED.
2.
The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.
This 19th day of June, 2012.
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?