Hoffman v. Breckon

Filing 49

ORDER granting 41 Motion to Stay Case; granting 48 MOTION to Suspend Briefing Schedule pending the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21-857. It is further ORDERED that the respondent shall file a response to Hoffman's Rehaif claim not later than 30 days after the Supreme Court issues its decision. The petitioner shall then have 30 days in which to file any reply. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 8/19/2022. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)

Case 7:18-cv-00265-MFU-JCH Document 49 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 306

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
MARCELLAS HOFFMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN BRECKON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00265
By: Michael F. Urbanski
Chief United States District Judge

ORDER
Marcellas Hoffman, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action as a petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 26, 2020, the court granted the
respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied as
futile Hoffman’s motion to amend his petition to challenge the validity of his conviction under
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.
Ct. 2191 (2019). On April 15, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
vacated the order denying relief as to the § 922(g)(1) conviction and remanded the case to this
court for a determination of whether Hoffman can satisfy the test set forth in In re Jones, 226
F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000), for determining whether a federal inmate may challenge his conviction
under § 2241 via the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Hoffman v. Breckon, No. 206322, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10328 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 2022); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)
(providing that a court may entertain a § 2241 petition if the petitioner can demonstrate that a
§ 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”). Following the
issuance of the mandate, the court entered an order establishing a briefing schedule for the
parties to address the issue identified by the Fourth Circuit. See ECF No. 39.

Case 7:18-cv-00265-MFU-JCH Document 49 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 307

The matter is now before the court on the respondent’s motions to suspend the briefing
schedule and stay further proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v.
Hendrix, No. 21-857, a case from the Eighth Circuit that addressed whether a similar Rehaif
claim could be brought under § 2241 by way of the savings clause. See Jones v. Hendrix, 8 F.4th
683, 686–88 (8th Cir. 2021) (discussing the existing circuit split as to whether a “change in case
law, combined with the successive-motions bar [in § 2255], makes § 2255’s remedy inadequate
or ineffective,” and ultimately concluding that the circumstances presented were insufficient to
satisfy the savings clause). Hoffman has advised the court that he “does not oppose” the
requested stay. ECF No. 46.
The court agrees with the respondent that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones will
likely impact the resolution of the threshold jurisdictional question presented in this case. Under
these circumstances, the court finds that a stay is warranted. See Kane v. United States, No. 206839, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19691, at *1 (4th Cir. July 15, 2022) (order granting unopposed
motion to hold appeal in abeyance pending decision in Jones v. Hendrix); Thompson v. Streeval,
No. 7:22-cv-00288 (W.D. Va. July 29, 2022) (order staying § 2241 petition pending decision in
Jones v. Hendrix); Spaulding v. Streeval, No. 7:22-cv-00118 (W.D. Va. June 29, 2022) (same).
For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the respondent’s motions to suspend
the briefing schedule and stay further proceedings, ECF Nos. 41 and 48, are GRANTED, and
this matter is STAYED pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21857. It is further ORDERED that the respondent shall file a response to Hoffman’s Rehaif
claim not later than 30 days after the Supreme Court issues its decision. The petitioner shall
then have 30 days in which to file any reply.
2

Case 7:18-cv-00265-MFU-JCH Document 49 Filed 08/22/22 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 308

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered: August 19, 2022
Digitally signed by Michael F.
Urbanski
Chief U.S. District
Judge
Date: 2022.08.19 18:34:47
-04'00'

Michael F. Urbanski
Chief United States District Judge

3