James v. Spaulding
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 7/24/17. (bs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN C. JAMES,
:
Petitioner
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-0951
v.
:
(Judge Mannion)
CAPTAIN S. SPAULDING
:
:
Respondent
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §2241, filed by Petitioner, Steven C. James, an inmate currently
incarcerated in the Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution, White Deer,
Pennsylvania. Preliminary review of the petition has been undertaken, see 28
U.S.C. §2243; see also, R. GOVERNING §2254 CASES R.41 and, for the reasons
set forth below, the Court will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
I. Background
On April 1, 2015, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
1
Rule 4 provides “[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 petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
See R. GOVERNING §2254 CASES R. 4. These rules are applicable to petitions
under 28 U.S.C. §2241 in the discretion of the court. Id. at R.1(b).
intent to distribute heroin. U.S. v. James, 2:14-cr-0087-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio
April 1, 2015). He was sentenced to a term of 110 month imprisonment, three
years supervised release and a $100.00 special assessment. Id.
On June 27, 2016, James filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. Id. In support of his claim, he
argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, –––
U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551(2015), which held that “residual clause” of 18 U.S.C.
§924(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) was
unconstitutionally vague, implied that similar, if not identical, language which
appears in those sections of the Sentencing Guidelines is also
unconstitutionally vague, and that he should be resentenced without regard to
those portions of the Guidelines. See, U.S. v. James, 2:14-cr-0087-GCS-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio April 1, 2015).
On August 1, 2016, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to hold
proceedings in abeyance pending a decision in Beckles v. United States, 136
S.Ct. 2510 (2016)(granting the petition for a writ of certiorari), which raised the
issue of whether Johnson invalidates the career offender provisions of the
United States Sentencing Guidelines – the same issue raised in Petitioner’s
motion to vacate. See, U.S. v. James, 2:14-cr-0087-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio April
2
1, 2015).
On March 6, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that the United
States Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under
the Due Process Clause, and that the residual clause in §4B1.2(a)(2) therefore
is not void for vagueness. Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. –, –, 2017 WL
855781. The Supreme Court reasoned that “[u]nlike the ACCA, however, the
advisory Guidelines do not fix the permissible range of sentences. To the
contrary, they merely guide the exercise of a court’s discretion in choosing an
appropriate sentence within the statutory range. Accordingly, the Guidelines
are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.”
Beckles, 580 U.S. –, –, 2017 WL 855781, *6.
In an Opinion and Order dated March 16, 2016, the sentencing Court
denied James’ motion to vacate, based on Supreme Court’s Beckles decision.
See, U.S. v. James, 2:14-cr-0087-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio April 1, 2015).
On May 31, 2017, James filed the instant petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, seeking to be resentenced under
Johnson. (Doc. 1).
3
II.
Discussion
Federal prisoners seeking post-conviction relief from their judgment of
conviction or the sentence imposed are generally required to bring their
collateral challenges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. See 28 U.S.C. §2255(e).
Section 2255(e) provides that:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus [pursuant to §2241] in
behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion
pursuant to [§2255], shall not be entertained if it appears that the
applicant has failed to apply for relief by motion, to the court which
sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it
also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention.
28 U.S.C. §2255(e). To that end, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
observed that “[m]otions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 are the presumptive
means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences
that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution.” Okereke v. United States, 307
F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343
(1974)). Section 2255(e) specifically prohibits federal courts from entertaining
a federal prisoner’s collateral challenge by an application for habeas corpus
unless the court finds that a Section 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective.”
Okereke, 307 F.3d at 120 (citing In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.
1997)). This safety valve language in Section 2255(e) has been strictly
4
construed. See Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164, 1165–66 (3d Cir. 1971)
(concluding that unfavorable legal standards in circuit where sentencing court
was located do not render Section 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective);
Millan–Diaz v. Parker, 444 F.2d 95, 97 (3d Cir. 1971) (concluding that doubts
about the administration of a Section 2255 motion in particular do not make the
remedy inadequate or ineffective); United States ex rel. Leguillou v. Davis, 212
F.2d 681, 684 (3d Cir. 1954) (holding that even if the sentencing court
incorrectly disposes of a proper motion under Section 2255, the appropriate
remedy is an appeal of that decision and not a habeas corpus petition).
Importantly, Section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because
the sentencing court has previously denied relief. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251.
Nor do legislative limitations like statutes of limitation or gatekeeping provisions
render the Section 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective so as to authorize
pursuit of a habeas petition in this court. See, e.g., Cradle v. United States, 290
F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643, 647 (3d
Cir. 2000); Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. Rather, only when a prisoner is in the
unusual position of having no earlier opportunity to challenge his conviction or
“is being detained for conduct that has subsequently been rendered
noncriminal by an intervening Supreme Court decision” is Section 2255
5
“ineffective” for purposes of providing collateral relief. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at
251–52.
James cannot demonstrate that a §2255 motion is “inadequate or
ineffective”— and that resort to §2241 is therefore available—simply because
he has been denied relief by the sentencing court. See Cradle, 290 F.3d at
539. The remedy afforded under §2241 is not an additional, alternative, or
supplemental remedy to that prescribed under §2255 and James fails to
demonstrate that he falls within the Dorsainvil exception. If a petitioner
improperly challenges a federal conviction or sentence under §2241, as is the
case here, the petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Application of
Galante, 437 F.2d 1164, 1165–66 (3d Cir. 1971).
Moreover, James does not state that he has requested permission from
the United States District Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for leave to file
a successive petition. There remains that possibility that James would be
granted permission by the Court of Appeals to file a successive §2255 motion,
if appropriate. Thus, the Court will dismiss James’ petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241, without prejudice to any right Petitioner may
have to seek leave to file a second or successive §2255 motion.
6
III.
Certificate of Appealability
Section 102 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (28
U.S.C. §2253 (as amended)) codified standards governing the issuance of a
certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court’s disposition of
a habeas petition. Federal prisoner appeals from the denial of a §2241 habeas
corpus proceeding are not governed by the certificate of appealability
requirement. United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 264–65 (3d Cir. 2000)(en
banc) (certificate of appealability not required to appeal from denial of §2241
petition), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, –––U.S. ––––,
––––, 132 S.Ct. 641, 649, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012); Kornegay v. Ebbert, 502
Fed.Appx. 131, 133 (3d Cir. 2012). Thus, the Court need not address this issue
in the current action.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus will
be DISMISSED. An appropriate order will follow.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Dated: July 24, 2017
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2017 MEMORANDA\17-0951-01.wpd
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?