WATTS v. HOLLINGSWORTH
Filing
5
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/6/2015. (jbk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BRIAN KEITH WATTS,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Petitioner,
Civil Action
No. 15-0267 (JBS)
v.
JORDAN HOLLINGSWORTH,
OPINION
Respondent.
APPEARANCES:
Brian Keith Watts, Petitioner pro se
#14394-171
FCI Fort Dix Building 5752
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Brian Keith Watts, a federal prisoner confined at FCI Fort
Dix, New Jersey, filed this petition under the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1651, challenging the judgment of conviction imposed by
the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, as well as an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket Entry 1). The Court construes this as a
petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Based on Petitioner’s affidavit of indigency, his
application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted, and
the Petition shall be filed. For the reasons expressed below,
this Court will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction,
and no certificate of appealability shall issue.
BACKGROUND
Following a jury trial in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, Petitioner was convicted of
conspiring to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute,
and to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, and 500
grams or more of a mixture or substance containing
methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846; manufacturing and possessing
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or
substance containing methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A); possessing equipment, chemicals, products, and
materials which may be used to manufacture a controlled
substance, knowing, intending, and having reasonable cause to
believe that they would be used to manufacture a controlled
substance, 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6); and knowingly
using or possessing firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). United States v. Watts, No. 06-00452
(D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2008) (judgment of conviction).1 The District
Court sentenced Petitioner to a total term of one hundred
eighty-one (181) months. Ibid.
1
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4(b) (permitting examination of “the
record of prior proceedings” in the court's initial review).
2
Petitioner timely appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (Docket Entry 1 at 4). His sole
challenge before the Court of Appeals was to the validity of the
search warrant used to search Petitioner’s residence and shed.
United States v. Watts, 352 F. App'x 784 (4th Cir. 2009).2 The
Fourth Circuit affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentence,
id. at 785-86, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Watts v.
United States, 559 U.S. 1057 (2010).
Petitioner thereafter filed a timely motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
(Docket Entry 1 at 4); Watts v. United States, No. 10-70218
(D.S.C. filed July 6, 2010). Petitioner voluntarily dismissed
this petition and filed a new petition on January 6, 2011. See
Watts, No. 06-00452 at Docket Entries 865-86; (Docket Entry 1 at
4). Petitioner asserted five grounds for relief, all based on
the alleged ineffectiveness of Petitioner’s trial counsel. Watts
v. United States, No. 06-452, 2012 WL 3614621, at *5-6 (D.S.C.
Aug. 21, 2012). The United States moved for summary judgment,
and the District Court granted the motion. Id. at *10. The
Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, United
States v. Watts, 507 F. App'x 292 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam),
2
“[A] court may take judicial notice of a prior judicial
opinion.” McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 525 (3d Cir.
2009).
3
and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Watts v. United States,
134 S. Ct. 335 (2013).
Thereafter, Petitioner filed the instant petition in this
Court, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Docket Entry 1). The Court administratively terminated the
petition on January 16, 2015. (Docket Entry 2). Petitioner
submitted an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis,
(Docket Entry 3), and the Court reopened the case for review.
Based on Petitioner’s affidavit of indigency and certified
account statement, the Court will grant his request to proceed
in forma pauperis and file the petition.
Petitioner raises five grounds for relief: (1) the United
States failed to establish either possession or constructive
possession over the firearm; (2) “that dominion or control over
the building where the firearm was located, was ‘not’
established by the government to establish ownership and or
possession of the firearm”; (3) “that the rental property
(building in question) was not owned by Petitioner and is where
the gun was located, was in probate with Petitioner’s Sister,
who possessed power of attorney over the property, and received
the proceeds from the rental of said property”; (4) the
government failed to establish Petitioner’s ownership of the
“rented building”; and (5) “the government failed to provide
evidence at trial that Petitioner owned the building in
4
question. Counsel also failed to search the record and present a
viable affirmative defense for Petitioner when counsel failed to
present at trial or any time thereafter, that the Sister
possessed Power Of Attorney . . . .” (Docket Entry 1 at 1-3).
Petitioner asserts the guilty verdict on the conspiracy and
firearms charges could not have been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. (Docket Entry 1 at 3-4). He asks the Court to grant him
an evidentiary hearing and to order his release. (Docket Entry 1
at 4).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Petitioner brings this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
as a pro se litigant. A pro se pleading is held to less
stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se habeas petition and
any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with
a measure of tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d
Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721–22 (3d
Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d
Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970).
A federal district court must dismiss a habeas corpus
petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4
(made applicable through Rule 1(b)); see also McFarland v.
5
Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45
(3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner filed this petition under the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1651; however, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 controls this petition
for habeas corpus. See Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172,
174 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The All Writs Act is a residual source of
authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by
statute . . . . [w]here a statute specifically addresses the
particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All
Writs Act, that is controlling.” (internal quotation marks
omitted) (alteration in original)); see also Byrd v. Warden Fort
Dix FCI, 611 F. App'x 62, 63 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Massey).
Section 2241 “confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the
petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the
validity but the execution of his sentence.” Coady v. Vaughn,
251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). A challenge to the validity of
a federal conviction or sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. See Jackman v. Shartle, 535 F. App’x 87, 88 (3d Cir.
2013) (per curiam) (citing Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d
117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002)). “[Section] 2255 expressly prohibits a
district court from considering a challenge to a prisoner's
federal sentence under § 2241 unless the remedy under § 2255 is
‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
6
detention.’” Snyder v. Dix, 588 F. App’x 205, 206 (3d Cir. 2015)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)); see also In re Dorsainvil, 119
F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997).
Petitioner argues he “has no other viable remedy for
release from his unlawful detention . . . other than this
petition . . . where appeals, post conviction and successive
petition were exhausted.” (Docket Entry 1 at 4). “A § 2255
motion is inadequate or ineffective only where the petitioner
demonstrates that some limitation or procedure would prevent a §
2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing and
adjudication of his wrongful detention claim.” Cradle v. U.S. ex
rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted). “Section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely
because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the one-year
statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable
to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of ... § 2255.”
Id. at 539 (citations omitted). “It is the inefficacy of the
remedy, not the personal inability to use it, that is
determinative.” Id. at 538 (citation omitted); see also Okereke
v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120-21 (3d Cir. 2002).
Petitioner asserts the United States failed to meet its
burden of proof at his trial. (Docket Entry 1 at 3-4). He is
therefore challenging the validity of his convictions, not the
manner in which his sentence is being carried out. Section 2255
7
is not “inadequate or ineffective” because Petitioner does not
meet the requirements to bring a second or successive petition.
Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this
challenge to Petitioner's conviction under § 2241.
Whenever a civil action is filed in a court that lacks
jurisdiction, “the court shall, if it is in the interests of
justice, transfer such action ... to any other such court in
which the action ... could have been brought at the time it was
filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Since Petitioner has already pursued a
motion under § 2255, he must seek authorization from the Fourth
Circuit to file a second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3). The Court finds that it is not in the interests of
justice to transfer this habeas petition to the Fourth Circuit
as it does not appear Petitioner can satisfy the requirements of
§ 2244(b)(2). However, this Court's decision to not transfer the
case does not prevent Petitioner seeking permission from the
Fourth Circuit on his own.
As Petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2),
this Court will deny a certificate of appealability. See Miller–
El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
8
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, this Court will dismiss the
Petition, and a certificate of appealability shall not issue. An
accompanying Order will be entered.
November 6, 2015
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
9
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?