Williams v. Warden et al
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan ; dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254) (RGG, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARK ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN; BRAD HENRY, Governor; )
TULSA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; )
STATE OF OKLAHOMA;
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
)
ERIC HOLDER; U.S. MARSHAL;
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
)
)
Respondents.
)
Case No. 11-CV-0264-CVE-PJC
OPINION AND ORDER
On May 2, 2011, Petitioner Mark Anthony Williams, appearing pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. §
2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is a federal inmate presently incarcerated at
Victorville Federal Correctional Institution, located in Adelanto, California. He paid the $5.00 filing
fee.
In his petition, Petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction entered in Northern
District of Oklahoma, Case No. 10-CR-076-CVE.1
He claims that: (1) the indictment is
multiplicious, (2) he was placed twice in jeopardy, (3) his right to due process was violated when
the indictment was corrected by interlineation, and (4) he is exempt from application of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) because his conviction violates his right to property under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(b). In his
request for relief, Petitioner asks that he “be ordered discharged from the detention and restraint
described in this application along with all other warranted relief.” See Dkt. # 1. For the reasons
1
To the extent Petitioner challenges the validity of any conviction entered by the State of
Oklahoma, his federal remedy is a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed after
exhausting state court remedies for each claim.
discussed below, the Court finds the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be
dismissed without prejudice.
A. Section 2255 provides exclusive remedy for challenging validity of federal conviction
“A district court does not have inherent authority to modify a previously imposed sentence;
it may do so only pursuant to statutory authorization.” United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707, 709
(10th Cir. 1997). In the context of a criminal conviction, a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
provides the “exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a judgment and sentence.” Bradshaw v.
Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). Unless the remedy provided by § 2255
is inadequate or ineffective, it is the exclusive remedy for testing the legality of the detention. 28
U.S.C. § 2255; see also Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673 (10th Cir. 1963) (per curiam).
The Court lacks authority to consider Petitioner’s petition seeking relief from his conviction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,or any provision other than 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant has not yet filed
a motion pursuant to § 2255, and Petitioner does not argue that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective.
As a result, the Court finds § 2255 provides Petitioner’s exclusive remedy for testing the legality of
his detention. Because the Court lacks authority to consider the requested relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, this petition shall be dismissed without prejudice.
B. Request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is premature due to pendency of direct appeal
The Court further finds that the orderly administration of justice precludes recharacterization
of the § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion. The record for N.D. Okla. Case No. 10-CR-076-CVE
reflects that on December 21, 2010, after having been found guilty by a jury, Petitioner was
sentenced to eighty (80) months imprisonment on his conviction of Felon in Possession of Firearm
and Ammunition. Judgment was entered on December 22, 2010. On January 2, 2011, Petitioner
2
filed his notice of appeal. By letter dated January 3, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
advised that Case No. 11-5000 had been assigned to the direct appeal. As of today’s date,
Petitioner’s direct appeal remains pending.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, the orderly administration of criminal justice precludes
a district court from considering a petitioner’s collateral challenge while review of claims raised on
direct appeal is pending. See United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing general
rule that a defendant may not pursue both a direct appeal and a collateral action simultaneously);
United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312, 1318-19 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing Rule 5, Rules Governing §
2255 Proceedings, advisory committee note); see also United States v. Robinson, 8 F.3d 398, 405
(7th Cir. 1993) ( “The rationale for the rule is a sound one: ‘the disposition of the appeal may render
the [§ 2255 motion] moot.’”); United States v. Gordon, 634 F.2d 638, 638-39 (1st Cir. 1980); United
States v. Davis, 604 F.2d 474, 484 (7th Cir. 1979); Jack v. United States, 435 F.2d 317, 318 (9th Cir.
1970); Womack v. United States, 395 F.2d 630, 631 (D.C. Cir. 1968); Masters v. Eide, 353 F.2d 517
(8th Cir. 1965). In Prows, 448 F.3d at 1229, the Tenth Circuit found that the existence of
extraordinary circumstances justified the district court’s consideration of a § 2255 motion while
review of claims on direct appeal was pending. However, in Prows, in contrast to the instant case,
the government filed the direct appeal. Furthermore, there was a “complete dichotomy” between
the issues raised by the government on direct appeal and those raised by Mr. Prows in his § 2255
motion. Id. In this case, it is Petitioner who has commenced both a direct appeal and this collateral
challenge filed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In addition, there may be considerable
overlap between the claims raised in this action and the claims raised on direct appeal, resulting in
a waste of judicial resources if both actions were allowed to proceed simultaneously. As a result,
3
the Court finds that extraordinary circumstances warranting collateral review during the pendency
of Petitioner’s direct appeal do not exist in this case. Petitioner’s effort to seek collateral relief in
this Court is premature. Collateral review by this Court would be extremely limited and a waste of
judicial resources due to the pendency of appellate review by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Should Petitioner fail to obtain relief from the Tenth Circuit, his exclusive post-conviction
remedy will be a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Petitioner should consider carefully the ramifications of any further rushed filings in this
Court. A defendant who files and loses a § 2255 motion must meet stringent standards in order to
pursue a second motion under the statute.2 The dismissal of this action without prejudice will not
count against Petitioner should he pursue a collateral challenge under § 2255 after conclusion of
his direct appeal.
C. Petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 are appropriately filed in jurisdiction of confinement
As discussed above, Petitioner challenges the validity of his federal conviction. The Court
notes that if Petitioner were challenging the administration of his sentence, as opposed to the validity
of his conviction, then the petition would be properly adjudicated under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Montez
2
Section 2255 provides that:
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 factfinder would
have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases
on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
4
v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). However, even if the instant petition raised claims
properly adjudicated under § 2241, the Court would lack jurisdiction to consider the claims. A §
2241 habeas corpus petition is properly filed in the judicial district where the petitioner is confined.
Id. (citing Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996)). As stated above, Petitioner is
presently confined at the Victorville Federal Correctional Institution, located in Adelanto, California.
Adelanto is located in the territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Because Petitioner is confined in California, the Court
finds it would lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims had they been properly raised pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) is dismissed
without prejudice.
3.
A separate judgment shall be entered in this case.
DATED this 11th day of May, 2011.
5
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?