Lee v. Sanders
Filing
22
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners request to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri [Doc. #20] is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners request that this ac tion be construed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Case Management Order will be entered simultaneously as this Memorandum and Order.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall add as a respondent in this action the local Assistant United States Attorney, Tracy L. Berry. 20 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 1/18/18. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER J. LEE,
Petitioner,
v.
LINDA SANDERS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:17CV2911 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me upon review of the record, as well as review of petitioner’s
motion to transfer this matter back to the Western District of Missouri. After careful examination
of the application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as well as
petitioner’s motion to transfer, the Court will deny petitioner’s motion to transfer this matter to
the Western District of Missouri. The Court agrees, however, with petitioner’s request to
interpret this action as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Simultaneously with this
Memorandum and Order, the Court will enter a Case Management Order in this action.
Background
Petitioner filed the instant action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri by placing his § 2241 petition in the prison mailing system at the United
States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield Missouri on May 31, 2017. Petitioner
amended his application for writ on the court-approved form for filing § 2241 petitions on June
6, 2017, additionally filing exhibits showing that he had exhausted his administrative remedies
with the Bureau of Prisons with regards to his claims. The Western District Court reviewed
petitioner’s application for writ on October 31, 2017, finding that petitioner’s application should
be construed as a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transferred it
to the instant Court for review. After reviewing the petition in question, the Court disagrees with
the Western District, and will interpret the present action as it was originally filed.
Petitioner was sentenced to thirty-five (35) months’ imprisonment by the undersigned on
May 9, 2016, in United States v. Lee, 4:06CR131 HEA, for violating the terms of his supervised
release. The Judgment in petitioner’s criminal case stated that petitioner’s imprisonment, “shall
run concurrently to the sentence imposed under Docket Number 4:16CR00120 RLW.”
Petitioner was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of fifty-seven (57) months’ by
the Honorable Ronnie L. White on August 30, 2016, in 4:16CR120 RLW. The Judgment in
petitioner’s criminal case in front of Judge White stated that petitioner’s imprisonment, “shall
run consecutive to the sentence imposed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, St.
Louis, Missouri, under Docket No. 4:06CR00131-1 HEA.”
Discussion
“The exact interplay between § 2241 and § 2255 is complicated, [and] an explication of
that relationship is unnecessary for resolution of this [case],” Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533,
535 (3d Cir.2012) (citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir.1997)), [however] it is
enough to state that “[m]otions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by
which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in
violation of the Constitution.” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir.2002).
As example, claims attacking plea agreements are raised in § 2255 motions. See, e.g.,
Hodge v. United States, 554 F.3d 372, 374 (3d Cir.2009); United States v. Williams, 158 F.3d
736, 737–40 (3d Cir.1998). On the other hand, § 2241 “confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the
petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his
sentence,” for instance, by raising claims attacking the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) calculation of
his prison term or designation of his place of confinement if it yields a “quantum of change” in
the level of his custody. Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir.2005)
(quoting Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir.2001)); compare Ganim v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 235 Fed.Appx. 882 (3d Cir.2007) (a change in the geographical locale of imprisonment
cannot yield the requisite quantum of change).
This Court is confused by the Western District’s interpretation of petitioner’s application
for writ as a § 2255 motion when he is clearly asserting in his petition that the BOP erred in
interpreting this Court’s sentence as a consecutive sentence rather than a concurrent sentence
with Judge White’s sentence. The matter of an execution of one’s sentence falls clearly within
the confines of a § 2241 matter and not a challenge to a conviction, which should be brought
pursuant to § 2255.
The Court’s stated goal was to sentence petitioner concurrently with Judge White’s
sentence in 4:16CR00120 RLW. Therefore, the Court will order full briefing on the best way to
effectuate this Court’s intentions.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request to transfer this case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri [Doc. #20] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s request that this action be construed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Case Management Order will be entered
simultaneously as this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall add as a respondent in this action the
local Assistant United States Attorney, Tracy L. Berry.
Dated this 18th day of January, 2017.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
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?