Brooks v. Wilson
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 12/05/2017. Copy of Memorandum Opinion sent to counsels of record.(ccol, )
IN THE
UNITED
FOR THE
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
p
p
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
RICHMOND. VA
Civil Action No.
.
3;16CV857
WILSON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ashley
U.S.C.
Terrell
Brooks,
a
federal
inmate,
§ 2241 petition {"§ 2241 Petition,"
reasons
set
forth
below,
the
§
2241
filed
this
ECF No. 1).
Petition will
28
For the
be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
I.
Brooks
convicted
sentence
months
328
pled
felon
under
Cir.
under ACCA.^
guilty
and
the
in prison.
(4th
n'
i'
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Petitioner,
ERIC C.
DEC-•6 201?
u
ASHLEY TERRELL BROOKS,
V
fZ.
was
Armed
BACKGROUND
to
possession
sentenced
Career
Brooks
a
his
firearm
mandatory
Act
Brooks,
challenges
(§ 2241 Pet. 1-2.)
the
Criminal
United States v.
2008) .
to
of
("ACCA")
296
F.
by
minimum
of
App'x
enhanced
a
180
327,
sentence
Brooks contends that in light
^ As noted by the Supreme Court,
Federal
law
forbids
certain
people-such
as
convicted
felons,
persons
committed
to
mental
institutions,
and drug users-to ship,
possess,
and
receive firearms.
§ 922(g).
In general,
the law
punishes violation [s] of this ban by up to 10 years'
imprisonment.
§ 924(a)(2).
But if the violator has
of
the decisions
Cir.
2015),
2011),
he
and United States v.
no
sentence.
in United States v.
longer
has
(Id.)
On
three
October
response and agreed that,
Newbold,
Simmons,
649
predicate
24,
predicate
years."
(Resp.
Brooks
4,
for
F.3d 237
ECF No.
as
defendant's
8.)
(4th
(4th Cir.
for
an
ACCA
filed
Respondent
in light of Newbold,
the
F.3d 455
felonies
2017,
prior drug offenses no longer qualifies
offense'
791
his
one of Brooks's
"as a
ACCA
'serious drug
sentence
of
15
Respondent further conceded that
"no longer qualifies under ACCA and his maximum sentence
is only 10 years in prison.
amount
[of
time],
prison."
(Id.
however,
failed
the
Because he has already served that
court
at 4-5.)
should
order
his
release
In making this concession.
to address
how,
under the
for the United States Court of Appeals
from
Respondent,
established precedent
for
the
Fourth Circuit,
the Court had jurisdiction to grant such relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.
2017,
Accordingly,
the
parties
to
Court
file
jurisdiction.
three
by Memorandum Order entered on October 25,
appointed
further
The
counsel
briefs
parties
have
for
with
Brooks
respect
filed
or more earlier convictions
the
for
a
and
to
directed
the
required
issue
the
of
briefing.
"serious drug
offense"
or a
"violent felony,"
the Armed Career
Criminal Act increases his prison term to a minimum of
15 years and a maximum of life.
§ 924 (e) (1).
Johnson
v.
United
(citations omitted).
States,
135
S.
Ct.
2551,
2555
(2015)
For
the
reasons
that
follow,
the
Court
finds
that
it
lacks
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to grant Brooks relief.
II.
Federal
JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C.
courts
are
courts
of
§
2241
limited
jurisdiction,
"constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article
III
of
the
Constitution
and
affirmatively
statute."
In re Bulldog Trucking,
Cir.
(citations omitted).
1998)
required,
sua
jurisdiction
sponte,
exists,
ground appears."
Id.
to
"and
determine
to
federal
with
means
of
1111,
1113
under
28
remedy
collateral
sentencing court.
(5th Cir. 2000)
afforded
§
ineffective to test
§ 2255 (e).^
U.S.C.
attack"
basis
action
28
the
unless
§ 2255
on
the
and such a
Pack v.
1990) ) .
2241
by
352
{4th
federal court is
valid
the
if
for
its
no
such
U.S.C.
imposition
218
of
F.3d 448,
Fed. Det. Ctr.,
A federal
he
"provides the
a
motion must be filed
Yusuff,
(quoting Cox v. Warden,
(5th Cir.
U.S.C.
a
a
federal
(citations omitted).
conviction and sentence,
the
if
dismiss
by
147 F.3d 347,
Accordingly,
A motion made pursuant to 28
primary
Inc.,
granted
451
911 F.2d
inmate may not proceed
or
she
§
22 55
demonstrates
"is
that
the
inadequate
or
legality of his detention."
28 U.S.C.
"For example, attacks on the execution of a sentence
^ "This 'inadequate and ineffective'
exception is known as
the 'savings clause' to [the] limitations imposed by § 2255."
Wilson V. Wilson, No. I:llcv645 (TSE/TCB), 2012 WL 1245671, at
are properly raised in a
1192,
1194
F.3d 164,
632 n.l
of
n.5
166
(4th
Appeals
remedy
for
the
procedurally
1996);
§
(citing
Circuit
2255
because
is
an
In re Vial,
Bradshaw v.
Hanahan v.
Nevertheless,
Fourth
by
merely
obtain relief
1997)
1982)).
afforded
ineffective
Cir.
(10th Cir.
(7th Cir.
§ 2241 petition."
Luther,
from
has
not
rendered
a
86
693 F.2d 629,
emphasized
individual
filing
Story,
the United States Court
has
§
2255
that
"the
inadequate
been
under that provision or because an
barred
115 F.3d
or
unable
to
individual
motion."
is
Id.
(citations omitted).
The
under
Fourth Circuit has
§ 2241
to challenge his
circumstances."
Cir.
2008)
stressed that an inmate may proceed
conviction
United States v.
Poole,
"in only very limited
531
F.3d 263,
(internal quotation marks omitted).
test," id.,
269
(4th
The "controlling
in the Fourth Circuit is as follows:
[Section] 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 i s not one of constitutional
In
re
Jones,
added).
*3
333
(E.D.
The
226
Fourth
Va. Apr.
(4th Cir.
F.3d
12,
2000)).
328,
Circuit
2012)
333-34
(4th
formulated
law.
Cir.
this
2000)
test
(quoting In re Jones,
to
(emphasis
provide
a
226 F.3d 328,
remedy for
which ^
the
"fundamental defect
individual
criminal but,
is
presented by a
incarcerated
for
through no fault of his
has
no
source
of
redress."
The
Fourth Circuit
has
Id.
conduct
[or her]
at
333
instructed that
n.3
if
situation
that
own,
§
not
[he or she]
(emphasis
a
is
in
2241
added).
petitioner
cannot satisfy the test of In re Jones,
the "unauthorized habeas
motion must
be
jurisdiction."
Rivera,
F.3d
cannot
617
satisfy
dismissed
802,
this
for
807
test,
lack of
(4th
Cir.
because
2010).
his
Rice
Brooks
conduct
of
v.
obviously
conviction-
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon-remains criminal.
The
parties
controlling
"fundamental
individuals
acknowledge
test
in
the
defect"
whose
that
Fourth
test
re
Circuit,
also
conduct
In
Jones
but
embraces
remains
contend
criminal,
but
the
statutory maximum sentence.
below,
of
this
controlling
test
interpretation of
in
the
view
Fourth
requires
a
Circuit
his
As
not
or
the
the
for
her
explained
revision
and
the binding precedent.
that
circumstances
sentence exceeds
adoption
remains
of
merely
the
an
See United States v.
Surratt, 797 F.3d 240, 248-50 {4th Cir. 2015);^ Farrow v. Revell,
^ The Court recognizes that the panel decision in Surratt
does
not
constitute binding precedent as
i t was vacated by the
Fourth Circuit's granting of rehearing en banc. See 4th Cir.
Loc. R. App. P. 35(c).
Further, the panel decision was not
reinstated when the court found the petitioner's claims to be
moot in its ruling on rehearing and dismissed the appeal. United
States V.
cert,
Surratt,
filed,
July
855
21,
F.3d
218
2017
(No.
(4ch
Cir.
17-5255) .
2017),
petition
Nevertheless,
for
the
541
F.
App'x
327,
328
(4th
Cir.
2013)
(citation
omitted)
(concluding petitioner's "challenge to his armed career criminal
status is not cognizable in a
F.3d
at
267
extended
the
n.7
("Fourth
reach
of
the
§ 2241 petition");
Circuit
savings
challenging only their sentence."
at 333-34)).
precedent
clause
see Poole,
has
to
.
those
.
.
531
not
petitioners
(citing In re Jones,
226 F.3d
In the absence of an intervening decision from the
Supreme Court or the Fourth Circuit,
such a
revision is beyond
the power of this Court.
In re Jones made a
"clear limitation .
case can be used to invoke
§ 2255(e),
'such
v/hich
that
the
conduct
of
deemed not to be criminal.'"
In
re
Jones,
Holder,
560
only logical,
226
U.S.
F.3d
563
but
at
arguably
having been 'convicted'
applies
petition
full
for
enhancement."
force
a
claim
Brooks
of
(Reply 3,
own
actual
ECF No.
that,
was
before the
to
convicted
F.3d at 248
that
describe
Mr.
is
(quoting
Carachuri-Rosendo
contends
required
its
797
Citing
under ACCA.
on
prisoner
Surratt,
(2010),
.
the law must have changed
the
334).
.
"it
is
Brooks
v.
not
as
On this understanding Jones
terms,
and
innocence
11.)
allows
of
the
a
habeas
sentencing
Surratt raised a
similar
argument and the Fourth Circuit explained why i t was foreclosed
by the relevant precedent:
Court cites to the panel opinion as i t reflects the current
state of the law in the Fourth Circuit and addresses many of the
arguments raised by the parties here.
[Surratt]
argues
that
his
predicate
convictions
constitute elements of a separate, aggravated offense
for recidivists.
If that proved true, we might say
that Surratt was not guilty of the prior conviction
"element," and therefore innocent of the recidivist
offense.
an
Yet we do not
element
United
of
States,
[the]
treat a
offense."
523
U.S.
224,
247
Alleyne v. United States,
2151, 2160 & n. 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) . . . .
Surratt
insists
that
Id.
They are not.
at
alteration
248
{second
.
in
(1998);
s^
also
,
sentence
enhancements
.
133
v.
U.S.
his
are different.
prior conviction "as
Almendarez-Torres
S.Ct.
.
original)(parallel
citations
omitted).
The
Fourth
Circuit
does
not
recognize
the
sort
of
actual
innocence of a sentencing enhancement as pressed by Brooks here:
"[A]ctual
"means
innocence,"
factual
the Supreme
innocence,
Court
not
has
told us,
mere
legal
insufficiency." Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S.
614, 623 (1998); see also United States v. Tyler, 732
F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir. 2013) ("While Bousley addressed
the standard that a petitioner must meet for claims
brought under § 2255, this standard applies equally to
actual innocence claims brought under § 2241."). So,
"actual innocence applies in the context of habitual
offender provisions
only
where
the
challenge
to
eligibility
stems
from
factual
innocence
of
the
predicate
crimes,
and
not
from
the
legal
classification of the predicate crimes."
Pettiford,
612
F.3d
at
284;
accord
Damon
v.
United
States,
732
F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 2013); McKay v. United States,
657 F.3d 1190, 1199 (llth Cir. 2011) .
Surratt does
not suggest that he did not commit the crimes listed
in
the
Government's
original
information.
He
only
says Simmons changed the relevance of those crimes in
determining
constitutes
his later sentence.
Surratt's argument
the
sort
of
argument
about
"legal
classification"
Id. at 250
that we have deemed insufficient.
(alteration in original).
Additionally,
Brooks contends
pointing
that
" [a]
to
§
his
own
procedural
2255 motion is actually inadequate
and ineffective to test the legality of Mr.
(Reply 4
history,
(emphasis omitted,
Brooks'
detention."
capitalization corrected).)
Like,
Surratt, Brooks "never suggests that the § 22 55 mechanism denied
him a
chance
only that
to make
his
[the Fourth Circuit's]
Carolina law,
argument.
best,
he
pre-Simmons reading of"
Surratt,
says
North
and his own
797 F.3d at 254;
(Reply 4-
Allegations of this ilk do not render § 2255 inadequate so
as to allow a petitioner access to § 2241.
Finally,
so.
"[A]
of
the
a prisoner is unable
case.
'Congress
Clause,
.
review.'"
Cir.
at
Taylor,
529 U.S.
is
offended"
benefit
a
new
362,
without
the
265
1998),
[does not]
source
of
law
abrogated
376-77
on
other
(2000)).
because
interpretation
of
an
a
is
simply not
develop whenever
later,
offending
(quoting Green v.
simply
(citations omitted).
This
to take advantage of a
can,
. narrow
Id.
(4th
not
Suspension Clause.
Suspension Clause problem
.
Id.
Brooks suggests that failing to afford him relief
would run afoul
876
At
the ineffective assistance of counsel,
lack of legal acumen did.
8) .
present
the
Suspension
cognizable
French,
on
143
grounds,
favorable
habeas
F.3d 865,
Williams
v.
"[T]he Suspension Clause
individual
criminal
is
denied
statute.
the
Id.
When "a federal prisoner brings a § 2241 petition that does
not
fall
within
district
motion .
the
court
.
. for
scope
must
lack
of
supports
the
prisoner's
citation
and
quotation
here.
Accordingly,
of
th[e]
dismiss
savings
the
then
unauthorized
jurisdiction, '
even
position."
marks
clause,
Id.
omitted).
the
habeas
if
the
Government
at
247
(internal
That
is
for the reasons set forth above,
the
case
the § 2241
Petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
send
a
copy
of
this
Memorandum
Opinion to counsel of record.
It
is
so ORDERED.
1±L
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Date
4^ 5 2^(7
Richmond, Virginia
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?