Mines v. FCI Fort Dix

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 8/18/2017. (sbea, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

le
lr
C

MANANTINO JACQUET MINES,
Petitioner,

v.
WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

AUG I 8 2017
K, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND VA

Civil Action No. 3:17CV456-HEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing§ 2241 Petition for Want of Jurisdiction)
Manantino Jacquet Mines, a federal inmate proceeding prose, submitted a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 Petition. {' 4§ 2241 Petition," ECF No. 1.) For the reasons set fo11b below,
the § 2241 Petition will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1

I.

Procedural History

Mines pied guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a
mixture and substance containing cocaine base. See United States v. Mines,
No. 3:09CR106-HEH, 2015 WL 1349648, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2015). By
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 24, 2015, the Court denied a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed by Mines challenging the finding that he was a career
offender and his resulting sentence. Id. at *2-3. In his present§ 2241 Petition, Mines
once again challenges his career offender status and sentence.

1

Mines is incarcerated in Fort Dix Federal Correctional Institution, in Fort Dix, New
Jersey. Accordingly, Mines should have filed a§ 2241 petition in the district where he is
confined. See§ 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997). However,
the Court will not transfer the action to that court because of the apparent lack of jurisdiction
under both§ 2241and28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

II.

Analysis

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 such motion must be
filed with the sentencing court. See Pack v. YusujJ, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000)
(quoting Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990)). A federal
inmate may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 unless he demonstrates that the remedy
afforded by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 "is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). 2 "For example, attacks on the execution of a sentence
are properly raised in a§ 2241 petition." In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir.
1997) (citing Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996); Hanahan v. Luther,
693 F.2d 629, 632 n.1 (7th Cir. 1982)). Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit has emphasized that "the remedy afforded by§ 2255 is not
rendered inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual has been unable to
obtain relief under that provision or because an individual is procedurally barred from
filing a§ 2255 motion." Jn re Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194 n.5 (citations omitted). 3
The Fourth Circuit has stressed that an inmate may proceed under§ 2241 to
challenge his conviction "in only very limited circumstances." United States v. Poole,
2

"This 'inadequate and ineffective' exception is known as the 'savings clause' to [the]
Wilson v. Wilson, No. 1:1 lcv645 (TSE/TCB), 2012
limitations imposed by § 2255."
WL 1245671, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.
2000)).
3

Mines cannot avoid the bar on filing successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions by
suggesting he is filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. "Call it a
motion for a new trial, arrest of judgment, mandamus, prohibition, coram nobis, coram vobis,
audit querela ... , the name makes no difference. It is substance that controls." Melton v.
United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Thurman v. Gramley, 97 F.3d 185, 18687 (7th Cir. 1996)).
2

531F.3d263, 269 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The "controlling test," id., in the Fourth Circuit is as follows:
[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a
conviction when: (I) 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 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit
fonnulated this test to provide a remedy for the "fundamental defect presented by a
situation in which an individual is incarcerated for conduct that is not criminal but,
through no fault of his own, has no source of redress." Id at 333 n.3 (emphasis added).
Mines fails to satisfy the second prong of In re Jones. See id. at 334. Mines fails
to demonstrate that "subsequent to [his] direct appeal and [his] first§ 2255 motion, the
substantive law changed such that the conduct of which [he] was convicted is deemed not

to be criminal." Id. (emphasis added). The conduct of which Mines stands convicted,
distribution of 50 grams or more of cocaine base, is still criminal. Instead, Mines seeks
to proceed by § 2241 to challenge his designation as a career offender and resulting
sentence. However, the "Fourth Circuit ... has ... not extended the reach of the savings
clause to those petitioners challenging only their sentence." Poole, 531 F .3d at 267 n. 7
(citing In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 333-34). Because Mines fails to demonstrate that§ 2255
is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his conviction, he may not proceed

3

under§ 2241. Accordingly, the§ 2241 Petition (ECF No. I) will be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction.
An appropriate Order shall issue.

Isl
HENRY E. HUDSON

Date:Au~.lt 2of'J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Richmon, Vi:ginia

4