Johnson v. USA

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:Johnsons Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 12/12/14. (jmr)

_________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

JAMIS MELWOOD JOHNSON,
Petitioner, ,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Respondent.

Case No. 2:14-cv-00595-CW
Hon. Clark Waddoups

Petitioner Jamis Melwood Johnson was convicted after a jury trial in United States
District Court on several counts of mail and wire fraud. United States v. Johnson, 2:09-cr-133.
The jury verdict was returned on March 18, 2011. [2:09-cr-133, Dkt. No. 232.] Because of
prolonged post-trial motions and sentencing issues, judgment was not entered until September
10, 2014. [2:09-cr-133, Dkt. No. 488.] Johnson filed an Amended Notice of Appeal of his
conviction on November 8, 2014 and the appeal is pending. [2:09-cr-133, Dkt. No. 507.]
Johnson is currently imprisoned at the Utah State Prison under a Utah State conviction for
securities fraud. Johnson previously sought habeas corpus relief for the Utah State conviction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 which was denied. Johnson v. Mayer, 2:11-cv-450, Dkt. No. 14.

In the present petition, Johnson seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in
both the State and Federal cases on the ground of actual innocence. The Tenth Circuit has
explained the requirements for seeking habeas relief as follows:
Congress has told us that federal prisoners challenging the validity
of their convictions or sentences may seek and win relief only
under the pathways prescribed by § 2255. To this rule, Congress
has provided only one exception: a federal prisoner may resort to §
2241 to contest his conviction if but only if the § 2255 remedial
mechanism is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.”

Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 580 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)). Ordinarily
a petitioner must seek relief under Section 2255 in the district court that convicted him. Such a
petition is available only after a petitioner has exhausted his direct appeal. When a petitioner
incorrectly seeks relief under Section 2241, the Court has advised, “a district court would
normally dismiss [the petitioner’s] § 2241 petition without prejudice so that he might refile it as
a § 2255 motion in the appropriate sentencing court.” Prost, 636 F.3d at 581 (citing Bradshaw v.
Story, 86 F.3d 164, 167 (10th Cir. 1996)).
Johnson’s present Petition is premature. First, it was filed on August 15, 2014, before his
conviction was final and judgment had been entered. Second, Johnson has not exhausted his
direct appeal. Finally, he is proceeding under Section 2241 when the appropriate path to seek
relief is under Section 2255. Moreover, his attempt to seek relief for his Utah State conviction
has already been dismissed. For all of these reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice
to Johnson’s right to refile an appropriate petition once he has exhausted the other remedies that
may be available to him.

-2-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Johnson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED this 12th day of December, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

HON. CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Judge

-3-