BRILEY v. LYNCH et al
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/1/16. (jbk, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Jay Bonanza Briley,
Petitioner,
v.
Loretta Lynch, et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 16-4274(RMB)
OPINION
BUMB, District Judge
This
matter
comes
before
the
Court
upon
Petitioner’s
submission of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Pet., ECF
No. 1), challenging his conviction and sentence in the United
States
District
Court,
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.
See
Judgment, United States v. Briley, 12cr482-LO (E.D. Va. Oct. 22,
2013).1
Petitioner
is
presently
confined
in
the
Federal
Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, and he seeks
release from imprisonment. (Pet.) He submitted an application to
proceed
in
forma
pauperis
(ECF
No.
1-3),
establishing
his
financial ineligibility to pay the filing fee. The Court will
grant the IFP application.
1
Available on Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(“PACER”) at www.pacer.gov.
II.
DISCUSSION
The Court must review the petition and dismiss the petition
if
“it
plainly
appears
from
the
petition
and
any
attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court.” See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, applicable to cases
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 pursuant to Rule 1 of the Rules
Governing
Section
2254
Cases
in
the
United
States
District
Courts.
A.
The Instant Petition
In the Petition at bar, Petitioner asserts that he was
convicted by fraud on the court by the arresting officers who
testified that he made body contact with them during his arrest
on January 12, 2012. (Pet.) Petitioner contends the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction to convict him under 18 U.S.C. §
111.2
2
18 U.S.C. § 111 provides, in relevant part:
Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain
officers or employees
(a) In general.--Whoever-(1) forcibly assaults, resists,
opposes, impedes, intimidates, or
interferes with any person designated
in section 1114 of this title while
2
Petitioner’s claim is based on his theory that his arresting
officers had chronic illnesses that were the true cause of their
bodily injuries, rather than his alleged assault on them.
B.
Procedural History
Petitioner
Correctional
is
a
federal
Institution
in
inmate
Fort
confined
Dix,
New
at
the
Jersey.
Federal
He
was
convicted by a jury, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, of two felony and one misdemeanor counts
under 18 U.S.C. § 111 for Assaulting, Obstructing and Impeding a
Federal
Officer;
and
one
misdemeanor
under
36
C.F.R.
§
2.34(a)(2) for Disorderly Conduct-Obscene Act. Judgment, U.S. v.
Briley, 12cr482 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2013); (Amended Judgment,
Oct. 30, 2013). Petitioner was sentenced to a 78-month term of
engaged in or on account of the
performance of official duties; or
(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates
any person who formerly served as a
person designated in section 1114 on
account of the performance of official
duties during such person's term of
service,
shall, where the acts in violation of this
section constitute only simple assault, be
fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both, and where such
acts involve physical contact with the
victim of that assault or the intent to
commit another felony, be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 8 years,
or both.
3
imprisonment with a three-year term of supervised release. Id.,
Sentence, (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2013).
Petitioner filed a direct appeal, which was denied by the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Id., (Notice of Appeal Oct. 29,
2013); U.S v. Briley, 770 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. Oct. 22, 2014).
Petitioner then filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a motion for a new trial
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. See U.S v. Briley, 631
F. App’x 156 (Jan. 20, 2016). According to the instant petition,
Petitioner’s
motion
for
a
new
trial
was
based
on
the
same
alleged exculpatory evidence relating to Officer Bracanto that
he offers here. (Pet., ¶12.) The District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia denied both motions, and the Fourth Circuit
denied Petitioner’s appeal. U.S v. Briley, 631 F. App’x 156
(Jan. 20, 2016).
On May 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), alleging essentially the
same claim he alleges here regarding Officer Usher. U.S. v.
Briley, 12cr482 (E.D. Va. May 9, 2016); (see Pet., ¶14.) The
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the
motion, finding that it was a successive 2255 motion. Order,
U.S. v. Briley, 12cr482 (E.D. Va. May 26, 2013). The Fourth
Circuit
denied
Petitioner’s
subsequent
4
request
to
bring
a
successive 2255 motion. USCA Order, U.S. v. Briley, 12cr482 (4th
Cir. July 19, 2016).
C.
Analysis
Petitioner
jurisdiction
did
over
not
his
assert
the
basis
petition,
but
the
for
Court
this
Court’s
construes
the
petition as asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, based
on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). A federal prisoner
may challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence, once
the conviction is final, through the presumptive means of a
motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing
court. Okereke v. U.S., 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e), however, contains a savings clause, applicable
when a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of a petitioner’s conviction or sentence. 28 U.S.C. §
2255(e);
Massey
v.
U.S.,
581
F.3d
172,
174,
n.1
(3d
Cir.
2009)(appropriate use of the § 2255 savings clause is rare).
The fact that a petitioner unsuccessfully pursued a § 2255
motion in the sentencing court, and now faces a statutory bar to
filing another one, does not show the inadequacy of the remedy
provided under § 2255. McCullough v. U.S., 501 F. App’x 115, 117
(3d
Cir.
Oct.
17,
2012)(per
curiam).
The
§
2255(e)
savings
clause is extremely narrow, available under circumstances where
5
a
petitioner
had
no
prior
opportunity
to
challenge
his
conviction for a crime later deemed to be non-criminal by an
intervening change in law. Id. (citing Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120
(citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997).
Challenges
to
a
conviction
based
on
newly
discovered
evidence, and brought after a petitioner’s first 2255 motion has
been
denied,
should
be
presented
to
the
appropriate
Circuit
Court of Appeals with a request to bring a second or successive
motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 in the sentencing court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); 28
U.S.C.
§
2255(h)(1).
This
Court
lacks
jurisdiction
over
the
instant petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Where
a
civil
action
is
filed
in
a
court
that
lacks
jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interests of
justice, transfer the action to any such court where the action
could have been brought at the time it was filed. 28 U.S.C. §
1631.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1) provides:
(h) A second or successive motion must be
certified as provided in section 2244 by a
panel of the appropriate court of appeals to
contain-(1) newly discovered evidence that, if
proven and viewed in light of the
evidence
as
a
whole,
would
be
sufficient to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that no reasonable
6
factfinder would have found the movant
guilty of the offense; or
The Fourth Circuit denied Petitioner’s motion to file a
successive
2255
petition
based
on
the
alleged
exculpatory
evidence presented here regarding Officer Usher, and it denied
his motion for a new trial based on the alleged exculpatory
evidence relating to Officer Bracanto. Petitioner cannot evade
the Fourth Circuit’s ruling by filing his motion in another
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Therefore, it is not in the
interests
of
justice
to
transfer
this
matter
to
the
Fourth
Circuit under 28 U.S.C § 1631.
IV.
CONCLUSION
In the accompanying Opinion filed herewith, the Court will
grant Petitioner’s IFP application and dismiss the petition for
lack of jurisdiction.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Dated: August 1, 2016
7
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?