Williams v. Mansukhani

Filing 36

ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendation that Respondent's 23 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the petition is DENIED. Additionally, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/10/15. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Joseph Williams,
Petitioner,
v.
Andrew Mansukhani,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-1195

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is a federal prisoner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Respondent has answered the petition and moved for summary judgment in his favor. (ECF No.
23). Petitioner responded to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 26). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., all pre-trial proceedings
were referred to a magistrate judge. This case is now before the court on the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court grant Respondent’s
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 29). Petitioner filed timely objections to the Report,
(ECF No. 34). Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for review.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In making that determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review
of those portions of the Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Then, the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to
the magistrate judge. See id.
Petitioner filed his § 2241 petition pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in
order to challenge his Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) enhanced sentence. (ECF No. 1).

He claims that he is “actually innocent of the ACCA enhanced sentence” because 11th Circuit1
case law decided after his conviction establishes that the predicate crimes relied upon by the
district court in sentencing Petitioner as an armed career criminal are no longer considered
“crimes of violence” or “serious drug offenses” for purposes of ACCA sentence enhancement.
(ECF Nos. 1, 34).
In Farrow v. Revell, 541 F. App’x 327, 328 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished), the petitioner
filed a petition for habeas relief pursuant to § 2241, alleging that “he was actually innocent of
being a felon in passion of a firearm[, the underlying conviction,] and of being an armed career
criminal.” The Fourth Circuit held the petitioner could challenge the underlying basis of his
conviction in accordance with the rule set forth in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000), but
he could not challenge his ACCA sentence enhancement under § 2241. Id. at 328-29; see also
United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008) (“Fourth Circuit precedent has
likewise not extended the reach of the savings clause to those petitioners challenging only their
sentence.”).
Because Petitioner only argues that he is innocent of the ACCA sentencing enhancement
and he does not claim that he is actually innocent of the underlying conviction, he cannot
proceed under § 2241, and the Government’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.
See (ECF Nos. 1, 26, 34). In sum, the court finds that the Report’s analysis is thorough and
accurate and, therefore, adopts the Report and incorporates it herein in its entirety. Accordingly,
the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED and the petition is
DENIED.

1

Petitioner was tried and convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (ECF
No. 29 at 2). He is, however, serving his sentence in South Carolina. (ECF No. 29 at 2).

Additionally, a certificate of appealability will not issue to a prisoner seeking habeas
relief absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the court finds that the
petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Accordingly, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
February 10, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina