Lee v. Baltazar
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Antonio Lee and 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Antonio Lee. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 4/18/2017. (jn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTONIO LEE,
Petitioner
v.
WARDEN BALTAZAR,
Respondent
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 4:17-CV-315
(Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM
April 18, 2017
Background
Antonio Lee, an inmate presently confined at the Canaan United States
Penitentiary, Waymart, Pennsylvania (USP-Canaan) filed this pro se habeas
corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Named as sole Respondent is
Warden Baltazar of USP-Canaan. The Petitioner has also filed an in forma
pauperis application which will be granted for the purpose of the filing of this
matter with this Court..
Petitioner was convicted of intentionally possessing a firearm as a convicted
felon following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee. See United States v. Lee, 501 Fed. Appx. 486 (6th Cir.
2012). Following a direct appeal, Lee’s conviction was affirmed by the United
1
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 1, 2012. See id.
Petitioner indicates that he did not previously seek relief with the sentencing court
via a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Doc. 1, ¶ 10.
Lee’s pending action seeks habeas corpus relief on the basis his underlying
criminal sentence was improperly enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act
(ACCA) See id. at ¶ 13. He briefly alleges that two Tennessee state
convictions which were used to enhance his federal sentence do not qualify as
being serious drug offenses under the ACCA.
Discussion
Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule
4 (“Preliminary Review”) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (2004). See, e.g., Mutope v.
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 2007 WL 846559 *2 (M.D. Pa.
March 19, 2007)(Kosik, J.). The provisions of Rule 4 are applicable to § 2241
petitions under Rule 1(b)). See, e.g., Patton v. Fenton, 491 F. Supp. 156, 158-59
(M.D. Pa. 1979).
Rule 4 provides in pertinent part: “If 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.” A
2
petition may be dismissed without review of an answer “when the petition is
frivolous, or obviously lacking in merit, or where. . . the necessary facts can be
determined from the petition itself. . . .” Gorko v. Holt, 2005 WL 1138479 *1
(M.D. Pa. May 13, 2005)(McClure, J.)(quoting Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141
(6th Cir. 1970).
Since he initiated his action before this Court, Petitioner argues that he may
bring his present claim of an unconstitutional enhanced sentence via a § 2241
petition. It would appear that Lee contends that this Court has jurisdiction over his
§ 2241 action by virtue of his ongoing detention at USP-Canaan.
When challenging the validity of a federal sentence and not its execution,1 a
federal prisoner is generally limited to seeking relief by way of a motion pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997); Russell
v. Martinez, 325 Fed. Appx. 45, 47 (3d Cir. 2009)(“a section 2255 motion filed in
the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge
the validity of a conviction or sentence”). A challenge can only be brought under
§ 2241 if “it . . . appears that the remedy by [a § 2255] motion is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). This
A federal prisoner may challenge the execution of his sentence by
initiating an action pursuant to § 2241. See Woodall v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005).
1
3
language in § 2255, known as the safety-valve clause, must be strictly construed.
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251; Russell, 325 Fed. Appx. at 47 (the safety valve “is
extremely narrow and has been held to apply in unusual situations, such as those in
which a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for a
crime later deemed to be non-criminal by an intervening change in the law”).
“It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal inability to use it, that is
determinative.” Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002).
“Section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court
does not grant relief, the one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the
petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of the amended
§ 2255.” Id. at 539. See also, Alexander v. Williamson, 324 Fed. Appx. 149, 151
(3d Cir. 2009).
Petitioner is clearly challenging the validity of his ACCA enhanced
sentence which was entered in the Middle District of Tennessee. Thus, he must do
so by following the requirements of § 2255. As previously noted, Petitioner states
that he has not previously filed a § 2255 action.
Petitioner’s instant claim is not based upon a contention that the conduct
which led to his conviction is no longer criminal as a result of some change in the
law. Rather, his action only challenges the legality of his ACCA sentence
4
enhancement. He also acknowledges that he is not seeking relief based upon a
Supreme Court decision which can be retroactively applied to cases on collateral
review. See Doc. 1, ¶ 10. Lee has not shown that he is unable to present his
claims via a § 2255 proceeding. As recognized by the Honorable Kim R. Gibson
in Pollard v. Yost, No. 07-235, 2008 WL 4933599, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 18,
2008), for a challenge to a federal conviction to be presented by a federal inmate
by way of a § 2241 petition, there must not only be “a claim of actual innocence
but a claim of actual innocence coupled with the inability to have brought the
claim before because of a change in the construction of the criminal statute by a
court having the last word on the proper construction of the statute, which change
rendered what had been thought to be criminal within the ambit of the statute, no
longer criminal.”
Clearly, Lee’s pending claim does not fall within the narrow Dorsainvil
exception to the general rule that section 2255 provides the exclusive avenue by
which a federal prisoner may mount a collateral challenge to his conviction or
sentence. See Levan v. Sneizek, 325 Fed. Appx. 55, 57 (3d Cir. April 2009). As
previously noted, Petitioner admits that he has not previously filed a § 2255
petition for the purpose of pursuing his present claim of an improper ACCA
sentence enhancement. See Dixon v. Warden, FCI-Schuylkill, 2015 WL 871828
5
*3 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2015)(before the federal court door to the filing of a § 2241
petition opens, the applicant is first required to seek § 2255 relief).
Since there is no basis for a determination that § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of Petitioner’s sentence, his § 2241 petition will be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Of course, this dismissal has no effect on
Petitioner’s right to file a section 2255 motion in the Middle District of Tennessee,
or if appropriate seek authorization from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to file
a second or successive § 2255 petition. An appropriate Order will enter.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Mathew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
6
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?