Davis v. Stewart et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 7/31/2018. (jb5, Deputy Clerk)(c/m-08/01/2018)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS,
*
Petitioner,
*
v.
*
WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART,
FCI CUMBERLAND,
USAG JEFF SESSIONS,
*
Respondents.
*
Civil Action No. GLR-18-1745
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner William S. Davis’ Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) challenging his March 29,
2018 conviction and 144 month sentence from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina for cyberstalking and threatening communications in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2) (B) (2018); 18 U.S.C. § 2261(b)(5) (2018). See
United States v. Davis, 5:14-CR-240-1BR (E.D.N.C. March 29, 2018). Davis filed this
Petition without submitting the $5.00 filing fee or filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis. Requiring Davis to cure this deficiency, however, would serve only to
delay resolution of this case.1 For the reasons described below, the Court will dismiss the
Petition.
1
Davis is a frequent litigator in courts governed by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Pacer electronic docketing system lists 268 cases
filed in the Fourth Circuit, primarily in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States Court of
I.
BACKGROUND
Davis is an inmate at Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland.
On March 29, 2018, Davis noted a direct appeal of his judgment and sentence. The
appeal is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
United States v. Davis, No. 18-4201 (4th. Cir. 2018).
On May 25. 2018, Davis filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence
under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (2018) in the Eastern District of Virginia. Subsequently, the
matter was transferred to the sentencing court, the Eastern District of North Carolina. On
May 31, 2018, the Honorable W. Earl Britt, Senior U.S. District Judge, noting that Davis’
direct appeal was pending, dismissed the § 2255 Motion without prejudice as premature,
and denied a Certificate of Appealability. Davis v. United States, Civil Action No. 5:18CV-238-BR (E.D.N.C. 2018).
II.
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, the Court must determine whether this claim is properly
raised in a § 2241 petition or is, instead, more appropriately considered as a Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under § 2255. A petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to § 2241 and a motion pursuant to § 2255 are separate and distinct legal
mechanisms for obtaining post-conviction relief. A § 2241 petition attacks the manner in
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See https://pcl.uscourts.gov. Davis is subject to prefiling injunctions imposed by Eastern District of Virginia, see Davis v. Jawaorski, No.
4:13-CV-63 (E.D.Va. November 14, 2013) and the Eastern District of North Carolina,
see Davis v. Mitchell, 5:12-CV-493-F (E.D.N.C. March 3, 2014).
2
which a sentence is executed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A § 2255 motion challenges the
validity of a conviction or sentence. See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000);
In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Here, the Petition clearly
challenges the validity of Davis’ underlying sentence. Regardless of the label or title
used by petitioner, the substance of the petition, and not its title, determines its status.
See, e.g., Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 554 (1998); see also Castro v. United
States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003) (A court may recharacterize a pro se motion “to create a
better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its
underlying legal basis.”).
A federal prisoner may not collaterally attack a conviction and sentence in a §2241
petition unless an exception commonly called “the Saving Clause” set forth at 28 U.S.C.
§2255(e) applies. The Savings Clause permits a prisoner to challenge the validity of a
conviction where the remedy available is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of
his detention.” 28 U.S.C. §2255(e); In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000); Rice
v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir.2010). This exception does not trigger “merely . . .
because an individual is procedurally barred from filing a Section 2255 motion[.]” In re
Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194 n. 5; In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 333. Importantly, a petitioner bears
the burden of demonstrating that the §2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Hood v.
United States, 13 F.App’x 72 (4th Cir. 2001).
In this Circuit, a §2255 motion is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a
conviction when: “(1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme
Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct
3
appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of
which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner
cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of
constitutional law.” In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 333–34.
Davis asserts a § 2255 motion is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of
his conviction because there was “fraudulent concealment of judicial misconduct” at his
trial. (Pet. at 5, ECF No. 1). His unsupported, conclusory assertions are insufficient to
meet the standard announced in Jones. Moreover, Davis may pursue relief on direct
appeal and later in a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court.
Davis fails to
demonstrate that use of a § 2241 petition to attack his judgment and sentence is
appropriate.
This case will therefore be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.
A certificate of appealability is not granted unless there is “a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on
procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85. Here, the Petition does not satisfy this
standard, and accordingly, the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
4
III.
CONCLUSION
For these aforementioned reasons, the Court will dismiss the Petition without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. A
separate Order follows.
Entered this 31st day of July, 2018
/s/
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge
5
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?