BOATWRIGHT v. LEU

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/17/2017. (rtm, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
________________________
RONALD IAN BOATWRIGHT,
Petitioner,
v.

WARDEN D. LEU,
Respondent.
________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civ. No. 17-4220 (RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, United States District Judge
On June 12, 2017, Petitioner, a prisoner confined in FCI
Fairton, in Fairton, New Jersey, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1;
Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pet. (“Petr’s Mem.”), ECF No. 1-2.)
Petitioner asserts that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 because 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention.
at 1-2.)

(Petr’s Mem., ECF No. 1-2

Petitioner relies on Mathis v. United States, 136

S.Ct. 2243 (2016)1 and Holt v. United States, 843 F.3d 720 (7th

1

In Mathis, the Supreme Court held that a state
qualify as an ACCA predicate if its elements are
those of a listed generic offense, and there is no
cases where the defendant is convicted under a

crime cannot
broader than
exception in
statute that

Cir. 2016)2, concluding that his prior convictions do not qualify
him as a career offender under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and
that he should be resentenced.

(Id. at 2.)

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, applicable to § 2241
under Rule 1, the scope of the rules, a district judge must
promptly examine a petition, and “[i]f it plainly appears from
the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
dismiss

the

petitioner.”

petition

and

direct

the

Clerk

to

notify

the

For the reasons discussed below, the Court lacks

jurisdiction under § 2241.
I.

BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2012, Petitioner entered a guilty plea, in the

United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania,
to

charges

of

Conspiracy

to

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
3.)

Distribute

Cocaine

Base,

in

(Petr’s Mem., ECF No. 1-2 at 2-

He was sentenced to a 110-month term of imprisonment, a

lists multiple, alternative means of satisfying one or more of
its elements.
2
In Holt v. United States, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
noted
the
Government
had
conceded
that
Mathis
applied
retroactively on collateral review under § 2255.
843 F.3d at
721.
However, because the Supreme Court has not held that
Mathis is retroactive to cases on collateral review, the Seventh
Circuit held that a second or successive collateral attack under
§ 2255(h)(2) is not permissible.
Id. at 722.
The Seventh
Circuit did not consider whether Holt could pursue his claim
under § 2241 in the district of confinement. Id. at 724.
2 

three-year term of supervised release, and a fine.
According
under

the

offense

to

2011

level

Petitioner’s

edition

was

of

28.

presentence

the

(Id.

report,

Guidelines

at

5-6.)

(Id. at 3.)
prepared

Manual,

his

Petitioner’s

base

adjusted

offense level was 28, and he was considered a career offender
because he was at least 18 years old at the time of the instant
offense, his instant offense was a felony controlled substance
offense,

and

convictions

Petitioner

for

either

substance offense.

a

had

at

crime

of

least

two

violence

or

prior
a

felony

controlled

(Id. at 6.)

As a career offender, his adjusted offense level was 32,
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(3).
at 6.)
of

Petitioner received a two-level reduction for acceptance

responsibility,

(Id.)

(Petr’s Mem., ECF No. 1-2

His

eight

bringing

his

total

criminal

history

offense

points

level

placed

to

him

30.

in

a

Category IV criminal history category, but as a career offender,
he was bumped up to Category VI.

(Id.)

This resulted in a

custody range of 168 to 210 months, and the plea agreement was
for a sentence between 100 to 120 months imprisonment.

(Id.)

Petitioner objected to the PSR, but he did not file a direct
appeal of the sentence, nor did he file a motion to vacate, set
aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

3 

(Id. at 6-7);

U.S. v. Boatwright, 11cr252-WWC-1, (M.D. Pa).3
II.

DISCUSSION
Before the Court can reach the issue of whether Petitioner

is a career offender under the framework of the Mathis decision,
the Court must determine whether § 2241 is the proper vehicle
for Petitioner’s challenge.

“[A] federal prisoner's first (and

most often only) route for collateral review of his conviction
or sentence is under § 2255.”

Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP,

No. 14-4284, 2017 WL 3597705, at *4 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2017).
Congress, however, provided a saving clause in § 2255(e):

“a

federal prisoner may resort to § 2241 only if he can establish
that

‘the

ineffective

remedy
to

by

test

motion
the

[under

legality

§
of

2255]
his

is

inadequate

detention.’”

or
Id.

(citations omitted.)
Here, Petitioner has never filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255.

Although

there

is

a

one-year

statute

of

limitations

period to file such a motion, the limitation period does not
begin to run until the latest of certain events, one of which is
“the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized
by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by
the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on
collateral review.”

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).

3

See PACER case locator, available at
https://pcl.uscourts.gov/search
4 

If indeed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determines
that the Supreme Court in Mathis recognized a new right and that
it is retroactive on collateral review, Petitioner is not barred
by the statute of limitations from bringing his claim under §
2255.

Under those conditions, § 2255 would not be an inadequate

and ineffective remedy to bring a Mathis claim.
Plaintiff

is

ultimately

barred

from

bringing

a

But even if
Mathis

claim

under the statute of limitations, § 2255 is not inadequate and
ineffective

solely

because

a

petitioner

gatekeeping requirements of § 2255.

cannot

meet

the

See Cradle v. Miner, 290

F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (“Section 2255 is not inadequate or
ineffective

merely

limitations

has

because

...

expired.”)

the

one-year

Furthermore,

statute

the

of

Dorsainvil

exception, permitting jurisdiction under § 2241 where § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective to bring a claim that the conduct for
which

a

petitioner

was
the

convicted
prisoner

is

no

longer

challenges

criminal,
his

is

inapplicable

where

sentence

enhancement.

See Sorrell v. Bledsoe, 437 F. App’x 94, 96 (3d

Cir. 2011).
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the §
2241 petition because § 2255 is not an inadequate or ineffective
remedy for Petitioner’s claim.

Petitioner is not precluded from

bringing this claim in a § 2255 motion in his sentencing court.
5 

An appropriate order follows.
Dated: October 17, 2017
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

6