CONYERS v. HOLLINGSWORTH
Filing
11
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/2/2016. (tf, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAMES JUNIOR CONYERS,
Petitioner,
Civil No. 14-7035 (NLH)
v.
OPINION
JORDAN HOLLINGSWORTH,
Respondent.
HILLMAN, District Judge:
1.
On November 3, 2014, James Junior Conyers, who was
incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey, at the time he filed
the action, filed (under the mailbox rule) a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his
detention pursuant to a sentence imposed on February 1, 2011, by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina in United States v. Conyers, Crim. No. 10-0037-D1 (E.D. N.C. filed Mar. 24, 2010).
2.
(ECF No. 1.)
On August 19, 2015, Conyers filed (under the mailbox
rule) a motion to amend and supplement the Petition based on the
June 26, 2015, ruling of the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).
By Order and accompanying
Opinion entered on October 27, 2015, the Court granted Conyers
leave to file an amended petition.
3.
On October 10, 2015, Conyers filed (under the mailbox
rule) an Amended Petition asking the Court to “[v]acate the ACCA
sentence and sentence to time served or Transfer to the U.S.
District Court, Raleigh, N.C.” (ECF No. 5 at 8.)
He asserts
that on February 1, 2011, the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina imposed a 180-month term
of imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §
924(e).
Relying on Johnson, he argues that his sentence should
be vacated because the District Judge found that his 1993
breaking and entering, larceny, convictions were crimes of
violence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), Johnson held that the
residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutional, and, absent
sentencing as an armed career criminal, Conyers asserts that his
sentence would have been limited to 78 months.
4.
On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court held in Welch v.
United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016), that the Johnson decision
announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively in cases
on collateral review.
5.
The docket of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina shows that by judgment
entered on February 3, 2011, Judge James C. Dever, III, imposed
a 180-month term of imprisonment based on Conyer’s guilty plea
to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
2
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924.
Conyers appealed and on
December 8, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
See United
States v. Conyers, 457 F.App’x 229 (4th Cir. 2011).
There is no
indication on the docket that Conyers filed a motion to vacate
his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing
court.
6.
As a responsive pleading in the instant action, the
United States filed a motion to dismiss the § 2241 Petition or
to transfer it to the sentencing court.
7.
(ECF No. 10.)
Conyers filed this Petition under § 2241.
However, 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e) provides that a § 2241 petition “shall not be
entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply
for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him . . ,
unless it also appears that the remedy by motion [under § 2255]
is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.”
8.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
Because Conyers raised his Johnson claim in this Court
within one year of the Supreme Court’s issuance of Johnson on
June 26, 2015, Conyers has not filed a § 2255 motion, and the
statute of limitations under § 2255 begins to run from the date
that the Supreme Court recognized a newly recognized right made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, see 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), it appears that Conyers’ § 2241 petition
3
could be construed as a timely motion under § 2255.
See United
States v. Moudy, 2016 WL 3548421 (10th Cir. June 28, 2016).
9.
Section 1631 of Title 28 of the United States Code
provides that, [w]henever a civil action is filed in a court . .
. and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the
court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such
action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or
appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed[.]”
28
U.S.C. § 1631.
10.
The Court finds that transfer of this action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina is in the interest of justice because, as the
sentencing court, that court may have jurisdiction to entertain
the matter as a timely motion to vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, the judgment of conviction entered on February 3, 2011, in
United States v. Conyers, Crim. No. 10-0037-D-1 judgment (E.D.
N.C. Feb. 1, 2011).
11.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
September 2, 2016
At Camden, New Jersey
4
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?