BENNETT v. WARDEN ROBERT WERLINGER
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION dismissing without prejudice 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by PATRICK R. BENNETT. Signed by Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on August 24, 2011. (far, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICK R. BENNETT,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN ROBERT WELLINGER,
Respondent.
)
) Civil Action No. 10 - 172J
)
) District Judge Kim R. Gibson
) Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 1, 2010, Petitioner, Patrick R. Bennett, a federal prisoner, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 in which he seeks to challenge his federal convictions on the
basis of Supreme Court law that post-dates his convictions. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his money
laundering convictions have been invalidated by the United States Supreme Court decisions in United
States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) and Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008). For the reasons
set forth below, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice as Petitioner currently is trying to raise
his claims in his presently pending 2255 action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
A. Relevant Factual History
Petitioner's undisputed relevant factual history is set forth in the Response (ECF No. 12).
Specifically, on June 10, 2000, in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a
jury found Petitioner guilty of various offenses, including money laundering, where he was sentenced to a
term of thirty years. Petitioner filed an timely appeal and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed his conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Bennett,
252 F.3d 559, 561 (2d Cir. 2001). Petitioner was resentenced on June 5, 2002. Petitioner appealed his
new sentence and on September 18, 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence.
On March 17, 2003, Petitioner filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255, in which he claimed that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective.
See Bennett v. U.S., Civil No. 03-1852, 2004 WL 2711064 (S.D.N.Y. November 23, 2004). On
November 23, 2004, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
Opinion and Order denying Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and bail and denying all other
motions and requests as lacking merit. It does not appear that any appeal from this order was filed.
On April 11, 2005, Petitioner filed a second Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255, in which he asserted that, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004), his conviction should be set aside because his sentence was based upon judicial findings of fact
contrary to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and his trial and appellate counsel were
ineffective. See Bennett v. United States, Civil No. 03-1852, 2006 WL 738162, *1 (S.D.N.Y. March 22,
2006). On March 22, 2006, the District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the ' 2255
motion. Following a timely appeal, on December 3, 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded
two ineffective assistance of counsel issues back to the District Court. See Bennett v. United States, 301
Fed. App'x 31, 32 (2d Cir. 2008).
On May 16, 2009, Petitioner attempted to amend his ' 2255 motion and add the claim that his
money laundering convictions should be vacated based on United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008).
2
On June 4, 2009, the District Court denied the Motion to Amend/Correct on the basis that only the issues
remanded by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals were being reviewed. On November 3, 2009, the
District Court issued a Memorandum and Opinion regarding the remanded issues and determined that
Petitioner's defense counsel was effective. See Bennett v. United States, Civil No. 03-1852, 2009 WL
3614613, *13 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2009). On December 9, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the
Court of Appeals.
On February 17, 2010, Petitioner attempted to amend his ' 2255 motion by filing a pro se
amended petition in which he requested (1) that the court allow him to amend the habeas corpus petition
that was pending in the Second Circuit and (2) that the court rule on his claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. The Court did not docket the amendment stating that the District Court no longer had
jurisdiction as the action currently was pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and it was
inappropriate to allow Petitioner to appear pro se while he is being represented by counsel. Therefore, the
District Court had Petitioner's pro se motion returned to him.
On November 12, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued the following Order.
Appellant, pro se, moves to hold the appeal in abeyance in order to move
in the district court toamend his 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 motion, and for a
petition for a writ of mandamus and leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to hold
the appeal in abeyance is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the
motion is TRANSFERRED to the district court for Awhatever further
action the district court finds appropriate, as if it had been filed directly
in the district court,@ Whab v. United States, 408 F.3d 116, 118-19 (2d
Cir. 2005), and that the district court stay consideration of the transferred
motion until these appellate proceedings have concluded.
3
B. Applicable Legal Standards - ' 2241 v. ' 2255
Through the instant action, Petitioner is attempting to collaterally attack his federal sentence via a
petition for a writ habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. However, a motion under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 is
the proper procedure for a federal prisoner to raise a collateral attack on his or her federal sentence for any
error that occurred at or prior to sentencing. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997); Cox v.
Warden, Federal Detention Center, 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990).
28 U.S.C. ' 2255, in relevant part, provides as follows.
2255. Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
A prisoner in custody under [a federal] sentence claiming the right to be
released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the
maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may
move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the
sentence.
...
An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals from the order entered on
the motion as from a final judgment on application for a writ of habeas corpus.
28 U.S.C. ' 2255.
Petitioner brings this Petition under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 seeking to vacate his federal sentence. As
stated above, a challenge to a federal sentence as imposed, must be made under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255; a claim
concerning execution of a sentence may be brought under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. See Gomori v. Arnold, 533
F.2d 871 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 851 (1976); Bennett v. Soto, 850 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1988).
Notwithstanding, Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to bring this action under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 because
4
a motion under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. In this
regard, Petitioner points to the following statutory language in 28 U.S.C. ' 2255.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is
authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, 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 (emphasis added).
However, the remedy available under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 for a federal prisoner to raise a collateral
attack on his or her sentence is strictly limited to situations where a petitioner is completely barred from
seeking any collateral review under the new provisions of the AEDPA.
With respect to the present action, presently pending, although stayed, is a motion filed by
Petitioner in his 2255 action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
wherein he is requesting the same relief he seeks in the present 2241 Petition. It would be inappropriate
for this Court to decide the availability of 2241 relief where, as here, Petitioner is seeking such relief in
his pending 2255 proceeding. Petitioner has no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same
subject matter and the same defendants. See Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d. Cir. 1977).
When a district court becomes aware of two virtually identical actions it can dismiss the second without
prejudice. Id. An appropriate order follows.
5
th
AND NOW, this 24 day of August, 2011;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without
Prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, Petitioner has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
s/s Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:
Patrick R. Bennett
38551-054
Loretto
Federal Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 1000
Loretto, Pa 15940
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?