Teague v. United States of America
ORDER by District Judge Robert C Brack Adopting 16 MAGISTRATE JUDGES PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITIONS, Denying 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Anthony David Teague ; Denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; Denying 13 Motion to Amend/Correct and Denying 20 ORDER on Motion for Order (jjs)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CIV 16-0895 RB/JHR
CR 03-1133 RB-1
ANTHONY DAVID TEAGUE,
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
Magistrate Judge William P. Lynch filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition on August 25, 2017. (Doc. 130.) 1 The proposed findings notify Petitioner of his
ability to file objections and that failure to do so waives appellate review. To date, Petitioner has
not filed any objections, and there is nothing in the record indicating that the proposed findings
were not delivered.
Mr. Teague has filed several other motions that remain pending at this time: a Motion to
Appoint Counsel and Obtain Transcripts, filed on August 18, 2016 (Doc. 89); a Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Petition, filed on January 9, 2017 (Doc. 128); and a Motion to
Recharacterize Action as Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,” filed on October 19, 2017 2 (Doc.
After a de novo review of the record and the Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition (PFRD), the Court will (1) deny Mr. Teague’s pending motions (Docs. 89, 128, 133),
Unless otherwise noted, all document numbers refer to Mr. Teague’s criminal case: 03-CR-01133.
Mr. Teague first filed a Motion to Recharacterize Action as a Rule 60(b) Motion on October 16, 2017 (Doc. 132),
but he withdrew that motion in his pending Motion. (See Doc. 133 at 1 (“This [Motion to Recharacterize Action as
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241] is designed to supercede [sic] and replace a previously filed motion by petitioner
that the action be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion. That previous motion should be considered withdrawn by
(2) adopt the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD (Doc. 130), and (3) dismiss this case with prejudice.
Background and PFRD
The Court notes that there is a thorough summary of the procedural history of Mr.
Teague’s pre-trial, trial, and post-trial proceedings (including his motion to vacate pursuant to §
2255) in the July 24, 2007 Magistrate Judge’s PFRD. (United States v. Teague, 07cv0326
RB/LCS, PFRD (D.N.M. July 24, 2007).) The Court incorporates the summary here by
In his 2016 Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, Mr. Teague contends that
his conviction should be overturned because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. (See
Doc. 82.) After reviewing the record and the relevant law, the magistrate judge concluded that
the Court should deny Mr. Teague’s Petition, because he “has not exercised due diligence in
raising the issue and the issue is therefore waived.” (Doc. 130 at 5.)
Pursuant to Rule 72(b) the parties had 14 days to file objections after Judge Lynch filed
the PFRD. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “Objections must be timely and specific to preserve an issue for
de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” Neihart v. United States, No. CV
16-708 WJ/CG, 2017 WL 3726765, at *2 (D.N.M. Aug. 28, 2017) (citing United States v. One
Parcel of Real Prop., with Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, 73 F.3d 1057,
1060 (10th Cir. 1996)). “Additionally, issues ‘raised for the first time in objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation are deemed waived.’” Id. (quoting Marshall v. Chater, 75
F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted); citing United States v. Garfinkle,
261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) (“In this circuit, theories raised for the first time in
objections to the magistrate judge's report are deemed waived.”) (quoting Marshall, 75 F.3d at
Motion to Recharacterize
Mr. Teague did not file objections within the 14-day period. Instead, he filed a “Motion
to Recharacterize Action as Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (Doc. 133.) It is clear to the Court
that Petitioner’s Motion is simply a veiled attempt to circumvent the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD.
Consequently, the Court will construe this Motion as objections to the PFRD and will deny the
Motion. Even if the Court construed the Motion as one pursuant to § 2241, the Court would
dismiss it without prejudice on the grounds that it lacks jurisdiction, because Petitioner has not
shown that a § 2255 motion is inadequate.
Construed as Objections
“As explained, theories raised for the first time in objections are deemed waived.”
Neihart, 2017 WL 3726765, at *4 (citing Marshall, 75 F.3d at 1426; Garfinkle, 261 F.3d at
1031). In his new Motion, Mr. Teague asks the Court to treat his Verified Petition for Writ of
Error Coram Nobis as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 133.)
The only law he cites is on § 2255(e)’s savings clause. (Id. (citing Triestman v. United States,
124 F.3d 361, 377 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding that “§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of [the prisoner’s] detention,” so the prisoner was “entitled to raise his claim of actual
innocence in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus”).) The Tenth Circuit has explained:
Following AEDPA’s enactment, federal prisoners who are barred from bringing
second or successive § 2255 motions may still be able to petition for habeas relief
under § 2241 through the mechanism of § 2255(e)’s savings clause. “To fall
within the ambit of [the] savings clause and so proceed to § 2241, a prisoner must
show that ‘the remedy by motion [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention.’” Prost [v. Anderson], 636 F.3d [578,] 581 (10th
Cir. 2011)] (second alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)). Section
2255, however, has been found to be “inadequate or ineffective” only in
“extremely limited circumstances.” Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178
(10th Cir. 1999); see Brace [v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167,] 1169 [(10th Cir.
2011)] (stating that “§ 2255 will rarely be an inadequate or ineffective remedy to
challenge a conviction”). In Prost, we set forth our test: we ask “whether a
petitioner’s argument challenging the legality of his detention could have been
tested in an initial § 2255 motion. If the answer is yes, then the petitioner may not
resort to the savings clause and § 2241.” 636 F.3d at 584.
Abernathy v. Wandes, 713 F.3d 538, 547 (10th Cir. 2013). Petitioner carries the “burden to show
that he meets § 2255(e)’s savings clause.” Id. (citing Prost, 636 F.3d at 584). Mr. Teague makes
no effort to show he meets the savings clause. Nor does the Court find he would be able to make
such a showing. Petitioner’s argument regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is a tried and
true theory made pursuant to § 2255 motions.
Regardless, to the extent Petitioner presents a new theory, this theory was raised for the
first time in his objection to the PFRD and is thus waived. Accordingly, the Court construes the
Motion to Recharacterize as objections, overrules the objections, and denies the motion.
Construed as Motion under § 2241
Were the Court to interpret the Motion as one to amend his initial Petition, the Court
would dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. As discussed above, Petitioner failed to show that §
2255 is inadequate to test the validity of his conviction. Thus, a § 2241 petition is improper and
the Court would “dismiss the petition without prejudice on the ground that it lack[s]
jurisdiction to consider [Petitioner’s] claims.” Gibson v. Fleming, 28 F. App’x 911, 913 (10th
Cir. 2001) (citing Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166–67).
Even if Mr. Teague could make such a showing, his § 2241 Petition would fail for at least
two reasons. First, “[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . . . must be filed in the district where the
prisoner is confined.” Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing United States
v. Scott, 803 F.2d 1095, 1096 (10th Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted)). Mr. Teague is
confined in the McConnell Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Beeville, Texas;
thus, he would need to file a § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.
Second, “[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather
than its validity . . . .” Id. (citing Scott, 803 F.2d at 1096). “It is not an additional, alternative, or
supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Id. (citing Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672,
673 (10th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 377 U.S. 980 (1964)). A motion under § 2255, which is “filed
in the district that imposed the sentence,” id. (citing United States v. Condit, 621 F.2d 1096, 1097
(10th Cir. 1980) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255)), “determin[es] the validity of a judgment by the
court which imposed the sentence . . . .” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Taylor, 347 F.2d 365, 366 (10th
Cir. 1965) (internal citations omitted)). Petitioner’s claim that he was denied the right to effective
assistance of counsel is an attack on the validity of this Court’s judgment, it is not an attack on
how his sentence is being executed. 3 Therefore, a Motion pursuant to § 2241 is improper and
would be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition (Doc. 130; Doc. 16 in 16cv0895) is ADOPTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Teague’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct
Sentence (“Petition”) (Doc. 82; Doc. 1 in 16cv0895) is DENIED and the Petition is dismissed
Petitioner also vaguely argues that the fact of this conviction caused him to receive an “enhanced sentence” in a
separate proceeding in Texas. (See Docs. 82 at 1 “Petitioner is serving an enhanced sentence, based upon this prior
conviction, of . . . 20 years pursuant to a final court judgment issued on February 10, 2014 in the State of Texas.”);
133 at 1.) While Petitioner does not develop this argument, the Court finds that a motion under § 2241 is still not the
proper way to attack the validity of his conviction in this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Appoint Counsel and Obtain
Transcripts (Doc. 89; Doc. 8 in 16cv0895) is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition
(Doc. 128; Doc. 13 in 16cv0895) is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Teague’s Motion to Recharacterize Action as
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 133; Doc. 20 in 16cv0895) is construed as objections to
the PFRD and is DENIED.
The Court will enter a final order concurrently herewith.
ROBERT C. BRACK
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?