Crayton v. United States of America

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Crayton's objections (Doc. No. 22 ) to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wrights April 23, 2019 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. Magistrate Judge Wright's April 23, 2019 Report and Rec ommendation (Doc. No. 16 ) is ADOPTED. Crayton's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is DENIED. Crayton's request, in the alternative, for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/12/2019. (las) cc: Crayton. Modified text on 9/12/2019 (MKB).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Richard E. Crayton,

Civil No. 18-402 (DWF/ECW)
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

United States of America,
Respondent.

This matter is before the Court upon pro se Petitioner Richard E. Crayton’s
(“Petitioner” or “Crayton”) objections (Doc. No. 22) to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth
Cowan Wright’s April 23, 2019 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16) insofar as it
recommends that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) and
request for an evidentiary hearing be denied and that this case be dismissed with
prejudice.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and
precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference
for purposes of Petitioner’s objections.
In his present § 2241 Petition, Crayton challenges his death-enhanced sentence
because the Government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs
distributed by Crayton were the “but for” cause of the death of a woman who used those

drugs. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Wright explained that
Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to hear a federal prisoner’s collateral challenge to
his original conviction or sentence brought by a habeas petition unless the matter falls
within the scope of the “inadequate or ineffective remedy” savings clause. (Doc. No. 16
at 8-9.) The Magistrate Judge then considered whether Crayton’s Petition falls within
the scope of the savings clause, applying the law of both the Seventh and Eighth Circuits,
and found that Crayton cannot satisfy the Seventh and Eighth Circuits’ requirement that
he had no earlier procedural opportunity to present his claims within the courts of the
Seventh Circuit (the Court to which Crayton appealed his sentence). Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge explained that the Seventh Circuit imposed a “but for” causation
standard at the time of Crayton’s trial and sentencing, giving Crayton the opportunity to
assert that the trial court erred by not applying a “but for” causation standard at trial,
sentencing, during his appeal, and as part of his first § 2255 petition. The Magistrate
Judge further found that having had that opportunity, Crayton cannot demonstrate that the
remedy provided by § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective.” Thus, the Magistrate Judge
determined that Crayton’s Petition fails because he had an earlier procedural opportunity
to present claims based on a “but for” causation standard and that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction to hear his present collateral challenge under § 2241. Crayton has filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Crayton maintains
that he did not have an adequate opportunity to present his arguments for a remedy under
§ 2255.
2

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Crayton’s
objections, and the Government’s arguments in response. After that review, the Court
finds no reason to depart from the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, which are both
factually and legally correct. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered whether
Crayton’s Petition falls within the scope of the savings clause, correctly concluded that it
did not, and appropriately found that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the matter. In addition, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that an
evidentiary hearing would shed no light on issues that would affect the outcome of the
present Petition. Finally, Crayton’s attempt to raise an actual innocence claim is
untimely and should have been raised in Crayton’s initial petition. Based upon the
Court’s de novo review of the record, the arguments and submissions of the parties, and
the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the
following:
ORDER
1.

Crayton’s objections (Doc. No. [22]) to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan

Wright’s April 23, 2019 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Wright’s April 23, 2019 Report and Recommendation

(Doc. No. [16]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Crayton’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is DENIED.

4.

Crayton’s request, in the alternative, for an evidentiary hearing is

DENIED.
3

5.

This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: September 12, 2019

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

4