Mosby v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, without prejudice. A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/7/14. (LGK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DAVID L. MOSBY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of David L. Mosby's application
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is currently
incarcerated at FCI-Memphis, Tennessee.
Petitioner states that, following a jury trial, he was convicted of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
846. On May 10, 1991, he was sentenced to a term of forty years' imprisonment.
The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
In the instant action,
petitioner seeks relief from his sentence on the ground that "the District Court
violated his due process rights . . . when it sentenced him to an enhanced term of
imprisonment based on elements of his offense that were not submitted to nor
found by the jury." See Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). For
relief, petitioner seeks resentencing.
Petitioner's request for relief pursuant to § 2241 will be denied. First, this
Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant action, because petitioner is
not located in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri's
judicial district, and the person having custody over him, the warden at FCIMemphis, cannot be reached by service of process. See Braden v. 30th Judicial
Circuit Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1972).
Second, even if petitioner or his custodian were located in this district,
petitioner's § 2241 application would be denied.
A challenge to a federal
conviction or sentence is most appropriately brought as a motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. See United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 217 (1952). Moreover, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that a writ of habeas
corpus may issue under § 2241 only if it appears that the remedy by means of
filing a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective. See United States v. Lurie, 207
F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000). In the instant action, petitioner summarily claims
that his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate. Specifically, he states, "Petitioner
further argues that § 2241 is the appropriate remedy for him to seek relief due to §
2255 being inadequate to bring the claim" [Doc. #1-1, p. 3]. The Court finds that
petitioner=s summary statement is insufficient to establish the inadequacy or
ineffectiveness of remedy by a § 2255 motion.
Petitioner also states that he has previously brought two § 2255 motions to
vacate in this Court. He states that the first motion was denied in 1997. See
Mosby v. United States, No. 1:97-CV-62-SNL (E.D. Mo.). The second motion was
denied as successive in 2005, see Mosby v. United States, No. 1:05-CV-40-SNL
(E.D. Mo.), and on appeal, the Eighth Circuit summarily affirmed the judgment
and denied petitioner leave to file a successive motion under § 2255. See Mosby v.
United States, No. 05-2850 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2005). In addition, in 1999, movant
sought, but was denied, permission by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a
second or successive habeas application. See Mosby v. United States, No. 99-3634
(8th Cir. Dec. 6, 1999). It may be that petitioner styled the instant action as a §
2241 petition in an effort to avoid characterization as a successive § 2255 motion;
however, a § 2255 motion is not inadequate simply because it is successive.1 See
Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 376 (2d Cir. 1997) (the "inadequate or
As amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2255 now provides that a "second or successive motion
must be certified . . . by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals" to contain
certain information. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides that "[b]efore a
second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district
court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application."
ineffective" provision in § 2255 does not mean that habeas corpus is preserved
whenever a federal prisoner faces a substantive or procedural barrier to § 2255
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the instant § 2241 petition.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, without prejudice.
A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 7th day of July, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?