Bonilla-Aleman v. Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale

Filing 8

JUDGMENT adopting 6 Report and Recommendations re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Reginaldo Bonilla-Aleman, denying 7 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge James D Cain, Jr on 9/16/2022. (crt,Taylor, L)

Case 2:22-cv-01879-JDC-KK Document 8 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
REGINALDO BONILLA-ALEMAN
#41338-018

CASE NO. 2:22-CV-01879 SEC P

VERSUS

JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX
OAKDALE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

JUDGMENT
Before the court are a Report and Recommendation [doc. 6] of the Magistrate Judge,
recommending that this habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and objections/a motion to continue [doc. 7] filed
by petitioner. Petitioner argues that the case should be stayed pending a ruling by the United
States Supreme Court in Jones v. Hendrix, 8 F.4th 683 (8th Cir. 2021), cert. granted, No.
21-857, ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S.Ct. 2706, 212 L.Ed.2d 777 (U.S. May 16, 2022). That case
will resolve a circuit split on the availability of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s savings
clause for statutory interpretation claims. Under the Fifth Circuit’s current interpretation, a
federal prisoner may use the savings clause to challenge his conviction under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 in the district where he is incarcerated if he can show the following:
(1) the petition raises a claim “that is based on a retroactively applicable
Supreme Court decision”; (2) the claim was previously “foreclosed by circuit
law at the time when [it] should have been raised in petitioner's trial, appeal
or first § 2255 motion”; and (3) that retroactively applicable decision
establishes that “the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent
offense.”

Case 2:22-cv-01879-JDC-KK Document 8 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 70

Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Reyes-Requena v. United
States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001)). Petitioner’s suit, however, involves only newly
discovered evidence. See doc. 1, att. 2. Relief is already available in such cases, even on a
second or successive motion, through 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Jones relates only to the
availability of savings clause relief in claims involving new rules of statutory interpretation.
See Jones, 8 F.4th at 686 (“The question is whether the change in caselaw, combined with
the successive-motions bar, makes § 2255’s remedy inadequate or ineffective.”) It has no
bearing on this petition. As advised in the Report and Recommendation, petitioner should
seek relief in the district where he was convicted under § 2255(h) for his claim based on
newly discovered evidence.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, and after an independent review of the record,
determining that the findings are correct under the applicable law, and considering the
objections to the Report and Recommendation in the record;
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion to Continue
[doc. 7] be DENIED and that this petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 16th day of September, 2022.

__________________________________
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE