Bennett-Johnson v. United States of America

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 7) to the Magistrate Judge's December 22, 2011, R&R (Doc. No. 4) are OVERRULED; 2. The Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. No. 4) is ADOPTED; 3. Petitioner& #039;s Motion to Compel Judgment in rem (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED; 4. Petitioner's Motion to Grant Relief from Illegal Imprisonment (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED; 5. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED; and 6. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 11/1/12. (LPH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Keith Bennett-Johnson,

Case No. 11-cv-3645 (SRN/LIB)

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

United States of America,
Respondent.

Keith Bennett-Johnson, pro se, Federal Medical Center, P.O. Box 4000, Rochester,
Minnesota, 55903, Petitioner.
David J. MacLaughlin, United States Attorney’s Office, 300 South 4th Street, Suite 600,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55415, on behalf of Respondent.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration
of Petitioner Keith Bennett-Johnson’s Objection (Doc. No. 7) to United States Magistrate
Judge Leo I. Brisbois’ December 22, 2011, Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). (Doc.
No. 4.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s application for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(Id.) For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s objections are overruled and the Court
adopts the R & R.
II.

BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2009, Petitioner was indicted in the Central District of Illinois for filing a

false lien against a federal probation officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1521. (Gov’ts
Resp. to Pet’rs Mot., No. 11-cv-288 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2011), Doc. No. 10, at pp. 1–2.)
The case was transferred to the Southern District of Illinois because the victim was a
federal officer in the Central District of Illinois. (Mem. and Order, No. 11-cv-288 (S.D.
Ill. Sept. 9, 2011), Doc. No. 6, at p. 1.) On January 5, 2009, a jury found Petitioner guilty
of filing a false lien and the Southern District of Illinois sentenced him to 41 months of
prison. (Id.) Petitioner did not appeal the conviction and instead filed a motion to
dismiss the indictment, which the court denied on Oct. 28, 2009. (Id.)
On April 11, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Central District of Illinois, which was transferred to
Southern District of Illinois, where Petitioner was convicted and sentenced. (Mot. to
Vacate, No. 11-cv-288 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2011), Doc. No. 1, at pp. 1–16; Transfer Order,
No. 11-cv-288 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2011), Doc. No. 3, at p. 1.) The 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion is still pending before the Southern District of Illinois. (Order, No. 11-cv-288
(S.D. Ill. June. 12, 2012), Doc. No. 26, at p. 2.)
Petitioner is currently serving his sentence in Minnesota. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. No. 1, at p. 2.) On December 20, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with this Court. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Doc. No. 1, at p. 1.) Petitioner alleges that his sentence is unlawful because the false lien
statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1521, is unconstitutional. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissing Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (R & R, Doc. No. 4, at p. 7.) Petitioner objects to the
2

recommendation. (Objection, Doc. No. 7, at pp. 2, 4, 11.) Petitioner has also filed three
subsequent motions: (1) Motion to Compel Judgment in rem; (2) Motion to Grant Relief
from Illegal Imprisonment; and (3) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 9, 11, 14.)
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

The district court reviews de novo those portions of an R & R to which an
objection is made and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord D.
Minn. LR 72.2(b). The objections must be “specific written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).
B.

Objection

Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that his application for
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1
(Objection, Doc. No. 7, at pp. 1–4.) As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, “[a] petitioner
who seeks to challenge his sentence or conviction generally must do so in the sentencing
court through § 2255 and cannot use § 2241.” Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959

1

Petitioner also argues that magistrate judges do not have the authority to make
determinations on § 2241 actions because Congress has not given magistrate judges such
authority. The Federal Magistrates Act, however, states that a judge can “designate a
magistrate judge to . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition” and the District of Minnesota Local Rules
specifically states that “each United States Magistrate Judge appointed by this court is . . .
authorized [to] . . . submit . . . proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the
disposition of . . . applications for relief under Title 28 United States Code, Sections
2241.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Minn. LR 72.1(a)(iii)(2).
3

(8th Cir. 2004). However, a petitioner can use § 2241 to challenge their conviction in the
court of incarceration if the petitioner demonstrates that § 2255 relief would be
“inadequate or ineffective” in the sentencing court. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also LopezLopez v. Sanders, 590 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2010). The petitioner has the burden of
proving that a § 2255 habeas petition in the sentencing court is “inadequate or
ineffective.” Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 963–64. A petitioner cannot satisfy this burden if he
“had any opportunity to present his claim [to the sentencing court] beforehand.” Id. If
the petitioner does not meet his burden, then the “district court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction over issues concerning the imposition of a sentence by another district
court.” DeSimone v. Lacy, 805 F.2d 321, 323 (8th Cir. 1986).
The Magistrate Judge properly determined that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a § 2241 application, challenging his false lien conviction.
(Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. 1, at pp. 1–3.) He did not provide any reason
why his § 2255 motion before his sentencing court in the Southern District of Illinois is
“inadequate or ineffective.” (See Doc. Nos. 1–3, 7–14.) Moreover, Petitioner had two
procedural opportunities to challenge his conviction—he had a chance to appeal his
sentence and to file a § 2255 motion, the latter of which is still pending before his
sentencing court. (Mot. to Vacate, No. 11-cv-288 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2011), Doc. No. 1, at
pp. 1–16; Order, Case No. 11-cv-288 (S.D. Ill. June. 12, 2012), Doc. No. 26, at p. 2.)
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Petitioner failed to prove that
§ 2255 relief is “inadequate or ineffective” and, thus, this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.
4

C.

Subsequent Motions

Since the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court dismisses the entire
action, including Petitioner’s three pending motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“when a federal court concludes that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.”)
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. No. 7) to the Magistrate Judge’s December
22, 2011, R & R (Doc. No. 4) are OVERRULED;

2.

The Magistrate Judge’s R & R (Doc. No. 4) is ADOPTED;

3.

Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Judgment in rem (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED;

4.

Petitioner’s Motion to Grant Relief from Illegal Imprisonment (Doc. No. 11)
is DENIED;

5.

Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED; and

6.

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: November 1, 2012

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

5