Watford v. Wilson
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 6/21/18. (Copy mailed to Petitioner).(jtho, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
D
t
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
2 I 2018
KENNETH WATFORD,
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND. VA
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:17CV604
V.
ERIC WILSON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kenneth
submitted
a
Watford,
28
U.S.C.
(ECF Nos. 6, 9-1.)^
a
federal
§ 2241
inmate
Petition.
proceeding
("§
2241
pro
se,
Petition").
For the reasons set forth below, the § 2241
Petition will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.^
I.
In
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF WATFORD'S CLAIMS
the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
District
Maryland ("Sentencing Court"), Watford was convicted of:
of
one-
^ The Court utilizes the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF
docketing system to Watford's submissions.
Watford submitted his § 2241
(See ECF Nos. 6, 9-1.)
Petition
in
The Court notes that
two
different
parts.
^ Watford is currently incarcerated in Terre Haute Federal
Correctional Institution, in Terre Haute, Indiana.
However,
when Watford filed the § 2241 Petition with this Court, he was
housed
in
Petersburg
Federal
Correctional
Complex,
in
Petersburg, Virginia.
(See ECF No. 9, at 2.)
Although § 2241
petitions are appropriately filed in the district where a
prisoner is confined, see § 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); In re Vial, 115
F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997), the Court will not transfer the
action due to the apparent lack of jurisdiction under both
§ 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud; three-counts of v/ire
fraud;
one-count
aggravated
theft
of
identity
while
on
attempted
theft;
pretrial
wire
two-counts
release;
fraud;
of
two-counts
aggravated
one-count
of
of
identity
access
device
fraud while on pretrial release; one-count of attempted access
device
fraud
while
on
pretrial
attempted access device fraud.
release;
and,
one-count
See United States v. Watford,
692 F. App'x 108, 109-10 (4th Cir. 2017}.
The Sentencing Court
imposed a 135-month term of imprisonment for all counts.
id. at 112.
for
the
sentence.
of
See
On May 19, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals
Fourth
Circuit
affirmed
Watford's
conviction
and
Id.
In his § 2241 Petition, Watford challenges his convictions
by
the
Sentencing
Court.
(See
ECF
No.
9-1,
at
2-6.)
Specifically, Watford raises the following claims for relief in
his § 2241 Petition:^
Claim One:
"Failure to appear.
On Nov[ember] 19,
2013, the judge ruled that I failed to
appear at a Nov[ember] 15, 2013 bail
revocation hearing.
I submitted proof
to this Court . . . that I did not fail
to appear."
Claim Tv;o:
(ECF No. 9-1, at 2.)
"Unauthorized
from
state
transfer
court
to
of
jurisdiction
federal
court.
The lawyer I had at the time
allowed [my case] to be moved
without my consent." (Id. at 4.)
^
The
Court
corrects
the
spelling,
punctuation,
capitalization in the quotations from Watford's submissions.
and
Claim Three:
"False
Criminal
Criminal
Complaint.
Complaint
convictions,
statement
had
The
two
felonies,
a
linked
me
that
conspiracy,
false
was
determined
false
to
at
a
trial
through the FBI agent['s] own testimony
that she lied. . .
Claim Four:
"Indictment
and
based
(Id. at 4.)
on
fraud,
misrepresentation
That
Mr.
of
Watford
misleading
the
was
truth.
convicted
in Baltimore City Circuit Court to 10
years for selling cocaine.
False.
That Mr. Watford was arrested in [North
Carolina] in 1989 for driving without a
license, and
was convicted of that
offense in March of 2009.
False.
That
Mr. Watford gave a gentleman a website
to
print-out a
fraudulent insurance
policy
that
he
used
to
purchase
vehicles in
other
people['s]
names.
False.
Was proven by the FBI Agent['s]
own testimony that she lied."
(Id. at
5.)
Claim Five:
"Conspiracy
aggravated
to
commit
identity
wire
fraud
and
theft.
It
was
proven in trial that I didn't provide
an
insurance
policy
or
identity
theft
names to anyone in furtherance of a
crime. It was proven at trial that the
lead FBI investigator lied about Mr.
Watford's
involvement
to commit fraud."
Claim Six:
a
conspiracy
"Loss amount.
There (was] no loss
amount reported.
There could have been
no intended loss because it was proven
at
trial
involved
fraud."
Claim Seven:
in
(Id. at 6.)
that
search
Government
cellphone
a
Watford
conspiracy
was
not
to
commit
cellphone.
The
(Id.)
"Illegal
warrant
Mr.
with
did
to
and
of
not
have
search
Mr.
refused
to
a
search
Watford's
turn
the
cellphone over to Mr. Watford, in fear
that
it
would
prove
Mr.
Watford's
innocence."
II.
(Id.)
MOTIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 COMPARED TO PETITIONS UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
Cir.
2000)
See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th
(quoting
Cox
v.
Warden,
1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990)).
under
28
U.S.C. § 2241
Fed.
Pet.
Ctr.,
911
F.2d
A federal inmate may not proceed
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).'' "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.l (7th
Cir. 1982)).
Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit has emphasized that "the remedy afforded
by
§ 2255
because
''
an
is
not
rendered
individual
has
inadequate
been
unable
or
to
ineffective
obtain
under
"This 'inadequate and ineffective' exception is known as
the 'savings clause' to [the] limitations imposed
Wilson
relief
merely
V.
Wilson,
No. I:llcv645 (TSE/TCB),
2012
by § 2255."
WL 1245671,
at
*3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328,
333 (4th Cir. 2000)).
that provision or because an individual is procedurally barred
from filing a § 2255 motion."
In re Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194 n.5
(citations omitted).
The Fourth Circuit has stressed that an inmate may proceed
under § 2241 to challenge his conviction "in only very limited
circumstances."
Cir.
2008)
omitted).
United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 269 (4th
(citation
omitted)
(internal
quotation
marlcs
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: (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,
added).'
The
226
F.3d
328,
333-34
(4th
Cir.
2000)
(emphasis
Fourth Circuit formulated this test to provide a
remedy for the "fundamental defect presented by a situation in
which
an
individual
The Court notes
is
incarcerated
for
conduct
that
is
not
that in United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d
Fourth Circuit recognized that In re
Jones may, in some instances. allow an inmate to challenge
serious sentencing errors in a § 2241 petition.
Id. at 427-30.
Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit affirmed that "[t]here is no
doubt that Jones is still good law in this circuit," and as
applied to Watford, requires a substantive change in the law
that would make his conduct no longer criminal. Id. at 427.
415
(4th
Cir.
2018),
the
criminal
but,
redress."
through
no
fault
of
his
own,
has
no
source
Id. at 333 n.3 (emphasis added).
III.
ANALYSIS OF WATFORD'S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 PETITION
Watford fails to satisfy the second prong of In
See id. at 334.
to
motion,
substantive
the
[he]
(emphasis
was
re Jones.
Specifically, Watford fails to demonstrate that
"subsequent
which
of
[his]
direct
law
convicted
added).
is
The
appeal
changed
deemed
and
[his]
such
that
to
of
conduct
not
be
which
first
the
§ 2255
conduct
criminal."
Watford
of
Id.
stands
convicted, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, attempted
wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, aggravated identity theft
while on pretrial release, access device fraud while on pretrial
release,
attempted
release,
and,
criminal.
of
which
access
attempted
device
access
fraud
device
while
fraud
on
are
pretrial
all
still
Because Watford fails to demonstrate that the conduct
he
was
convicted
has
been
decriminalized,
he
cannot
proceed by § 2241.
IV.
Watford
months.
Bail.
he
filed
a
number
of
motions
in
the
last
two
First, Watford has filed a Motion for Leave to File for
(ECF
transfer
where
has
OUTSTANDING MOTIONS
No.
this
is
16.)
action
currently
Second,
to
be
Watford
transferred
incarcerated.
to
(ECF
asks
the
No.
this
Court
district
17.)
to
court
Finally,
Watford asks this Court to have Watford transferred back
Virginia.
( ECF
procedural vehicle
seeks.
18. )
No.
that
Accordingly,
Watford
authorizes
fails
the
Watford's motions
to
identify
actions
that
(ECF Nos.
16,
to
the
Watford
1 7,
18)
will be denied.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the § 2241 Petition (ECF Nos. 7,
9) will be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.
Watford's outstanding motions
(ECF Nos.
16,
1 7,
18)
will be
denied.
The Clerk is directed to sen d a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion to Watford.
/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmon d, Virginia
Date: June -1..L, 2018
7
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?