Williams v. Wilson
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 12/7/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
CAZZIE L. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:11CV689
ERIC D. WILSON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cazzie L. Williams, a federal prisoner confined in Petersburg, Virginia, filed this
application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("§ 2241 Petition").
Williams is currently serving a 156-month sentence pursuant to a conviction in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey ("Sentencing Court") for four counts of bank
robbery. On July 22, 2009, the Sentencing Court denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed by
Williams challenging the above convictions and sentence.
Williams v. United States, No. 08-
1242 (JAG), 2009 WL 2191178, at *5 (D.N.J. July 22, 2009). In June of 2010, Williams filed an
application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Sentencing Court
which was dismissed as a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (§ 2241 Pet. 5.)1
The current § 2241 Petition is also a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides the primary means of collateral attack
on the imposition of a federal conviction and sentence and must be filed with the sentencing
court. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cox v. Warden, Fed. Del
Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
1Because the pages ofthe § 2241 Petition are not consecutively numbered, the Court will
refer to the § 2241 Application using the page numbers assigned to that document by the
CM/ECF system.
Circuit has stressed that an inmate may challenge his conviction under § 2241 "only in very
limited circumstances."
United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Specifically, "[w]hen § 2255 'appears . . . inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention,' § 2255(e), ... a federal prisoner may seek habeas relief from
the court in the district of his confinement under § 2241." Id. at 270 (first alteration in original)
{citing In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000)). In deciding In re Jones, the Fourth
Circuit concluded that:
§ 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction when:
(1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court
established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner's direct
appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct
of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the
prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule
is not one of constitutional law.
In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 333-34.
Williams fails to demonstrate that the substantive law has
changed since his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion. Thus, he fails to demonstrate that he can
proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.2 Furthermore, he cannot proceed by way of 28 U.S.C. § 2255
because he has not obtained authorization from the appropriate court of appeals to file a
Williams challenges his incarceration on three grounds:
Claim One
"Cazzie Williams is being held unlawfully because he pled guilty
to an indictment 'charging [no] crime', but was sentenced for a
four-count indictment charging 'Bank Robbery'." (§ 2241 Pet. 5
(alteration in original).)
Claim Two
"Cazzie Williams is being held unlawfully because there was [no]
conviction on record for any four-count indictment charging 'Bank
Robbery'." (Id. at 6 (alteration in original).)
Claim Three "Cazzie Williams is being held unlawfully because the District
Court entered a 'Judgment & Commitment Order' adjudicating
him guilty of the [unconvicted] 'Bank Robbery' charge (CRNo 08842)." (Id. (alteration in original).)
2
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996).
Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED for want ofjurisdiction.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/
Date: |i-|"l/l(
Richmond, Virginia
John A. Gibney,W
United States District Jtdge
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?