Turner v. Ponce

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED, without prejudice, AS DUPLICATIVE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. A separate Order of Dismissal shall issue. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 06/17/2016. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOE LENZIE TURNER,
Petitioner,
v.
FELICIA PONCE,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16CV741 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter was transferred from the United States District Court from the Eastern
District of California. After reviewing the case in its entirety, the Court will dismiss this matter
as duplicative of another matter already pending on this Court’s docket.
Procedural History
Petitioner, Joe Lenzie Turner, brought the instant application for petition for writ of
habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the United States District for the Eastern District
of California. After reviewing the case, United State Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows
transferred the instant action to this Court, finding that the present matter was more properly
construed as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Judge Hollows found, therefore, that the
case should have been filed within the confines of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
After considering respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the California
District Court transferred the instant action to this Court. In its Memorandum and Order, dated
May 23, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows found that petitioner was
bringing two claims in his application for writ. The first claim involved an alleged that the

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) had misclassified petitioner.1 After reviewing evidence relating to
the BOP’s classification system, Judge Hollows found that such a claim was not within the
proper purview of habeas corpus, as it did not affect the length of his prison sentence.
Judge Hollows found that petitioner’s second claim, however, alleged a sentencing
guidelines error, wherein petitioner attacked the validity of his 2013 sentence, issued by the
Honorable Judge John A. Ross in this Court.2 Accordingly, Judge Hollows found that
petitioner’s remedy under § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective, such that he could proceed
under the “escape hatch” provision of the statute, or under § 2241. Thus, petitioner’s only
remedy was to pursue his allegations under § 2255. As such, Judge Hollows transferred the case
to this Court.
Discussion
This Court takes judicial notice that petitioner filed a prior motion to vacate in the
Eastern District of Missouri, on June 2, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Turner v.
United States, No. 1:14CV77 JAR (E.D.Mo. 2014). Respondent filed a response to petitioner’s
motion on August 22, 2014; however, petitioner moved to supplement his motion to vacate

1

When petitioner was transferred to the BOP, they began the custody classification process, first
assigning petitioner a security point score. According to the BOP, the security point score is used
to identify the type of institution to house a particular inmate: low, medium, high or
administrative security. The security point score takes a number of factors into account,
including the inmate’s offense, prior criminal history and institutional adjustment. In addition to
its initial determination, the BOP periodically and systematically reviews inmates’ custody
classification. The BOP’s custody classifications do not affect the length of a prisoner’s
sentence. See Vicker’s Declaration, Doc. #18.
2

On April 5, 2012, petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride. See United States v. Turner, No. 1:11CR103 JAR
(E.D.Mo. 2011). On June 17, 2013, petitioner was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment by
the Honorable John A. Ross, to run concurrently with any sentence imposed in Case No.
1:05CR95 JAR, pursuant to the provisions of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. Petitioner was also sentenced to
ten years’ supervised release.

2

recently, on May 5, 2016. Id. In his recent supplement, petitioner makes the same argument
espoused in the instant motion to vacate relating to the validity of his 2013 sentence. Petitioner
also attacks the BOP’s execution of his state and federal sentences and their concurrent
administration by the BOP. This case is currently awaiting disposition before the Honorable
John A. Ross, the sentencing judge in petitioner’s 2013 criminal case in this Court.
Because the matters contained in the current petition are already before the Court in a
prior § 2255 petition brought by movant, the Court will dismiss the instant action as duplicative.
Petitioner should bring any and all additional claims relating to his § 2255, addressing his 2013
conviction and sentence in his prior pending § 2255, Turner v. United States, 1:14CV77 JAR
(E.D.Mo. 2014).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED, without prejudice,
AS DUPLICATIVE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall issue.
Dated this 17th day of June, 2016.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3