Edwards v. Entzel

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING § 2241 PETITION. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 10/27/20. (skc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
SCOTTY EDWARDS,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 1:20-cv-01130-STA-jay

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING § 2241 PETITION
Petitioner Scotty Edwards has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition (the “Petition”),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) 1 The pleading is before the Court for preliminary
review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harper v. Thoms, No. 02–5520, 2002 WL 31388736, at *1 (6th
Cir. Oct. 22, 2002). For the following reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED.
On March 18, 2019, Edwards pleaded guilty before the undersigned to two counts of
aiding and abetting the robbery of businesses engaged in interstate commerce, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951 (“Hobbs Act robbery”), and two counts of aiding and abetting the knowing
use, carrying, and brandishing of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c). 2 (United States v. Edwards, No. 1:17-cr-10103-STA-2

1

2

Unless otherwise noted, record citations are to documents filed in the instant case.

The § 924(c) firearm statute provides in pertinent part that, “any person who, during
and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . uses or carries a firearm, or
who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment
provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not less than 5 years [and] if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not less than 7 years . . . and[,] if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) (emphasis
added). The statute defines a crime of violence as a felony that “has as an element the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” or

(W.D. Tenn.), ECF No. 170.) The Defendant was sentenced on July 30, 2019, to a total of 128
months’ incarceration and five years of supervised release. (Id., ECF No. 216.) No direct appeal
was taken.
Edwards filed his Petition on June 15, 2020. He raises the sole claim that his § 924(c)
firearm convictions are invalid after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, 139
S. Ct. 2319 (2019). He argues, specifically, that his aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is not
a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 924(c) because Davis invalidated the statute’s residual
clause. See Davis, 139 S. Ct. at 2336 (holding § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally
vague).
As a general matter, a federal prisoner may challenge the “validity of [his] federal
conviction or sentence” only by way of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Hill v. Masters, 836
F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2016). He may advance such a challenge under § 2241 if he establishes,
pursuant to § 2255’s “savings clause,” that a remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)).
Section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of Petitioner’s detention
on the ground that his firearm convictions are invalid in light of Davis. Edwards has, in fact,
asserted his Davis claim in a § 2255 petition, which he filed one week prior to the initiation of
the present case. See Edwards v. United States, No. 20-cv-01125-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), ECF
No. 1 at 4.) That collateral proceeding is currently pending and is adequate to address the Davis
claim.

“that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of
another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), (B).
The latter language is referred to as the statute’s “residual clause.” United States v. Camp, 903
F.3d 594, 597 n.2 (6th Cir. 2018).

Therefore, Edwards cannot bring his claim under § 2241. The Petition is DISMISSED. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: October 27, 2020

3

Unlike a state prisoner, a federal prisoner wishing to appeal the denial of a § 2241
petition need not first obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).
Winburn v. Nagy, 956 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2020)