Copeland v. Kassell

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Aloi's 16 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; Petitioner's 18 Objections are OVERRULED; Respondent's [ 11] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and Petitioner's 1 Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a separate judgment order. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 3/9/18. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(copy Petitioner)(cnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
IVAN A. COPELAND,
Petitioner,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV78
(Judge Keeley)

S. KASSELL, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
On May 15, 2017, the pro se petitioner, Ivan A. Copeland
(“Copeland”), filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Dkt. No. 1). In his Petition, Copeland
challenges the application of the career offender enhancement to his
case under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1 (Dkt. No. 1 at
5, 13). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court
referred Copeland’s Petition to the Honorable Michael J. Aloi, United
States Magistrate Judge for initial review. The respondent, Warden S.
Kassell (“Warden”), moved to dismiss the Petition on June 2, 2017
(Dkt. No. 11).
On January 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Aloi issued his Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), which recommended that the Court deny and
dismiss the Petition without prejudice because Copeland failed to
demonstrate that § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy by
which

to

attack

the

validity

of

his

sentence

(Dkt.

No.

16).

Specifically, the R&R concluded that Copeland has not established his
entitlement to the application of § 2255's savings clause pursuant to
the test articulated in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000).
Id. at 9, 12-13.

COPELAND V. KASSELL

1:17CV78

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
In his objection to the R&R, Copeland contends that Magistrate
Judge Aloi erred when he determined that, because the Petition does
not fall within the scope of the savings clause as applied in In re
Jones, the Court must dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction
(Dkt. No. 18). Copeland specifically objects to the R&R’s reliance on
Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802 (4th Cir. 2010) for this conclusion.

He

argues that Rice is a “drive-by jurisdictional ruling” without
precedential effect, and that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arbaugh
v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) requires the Court to reconsider
Rice.
In Rice, the Fourth Circuit applied In re Jones to prevent a §
2241 petitioner from challenging the fact of his conviction through
the savings clause of § 2255. While the court ultimately remanded the
petitioner's case to the district court with instructions to vacate
his sentence, it determined that § 2241 was the incorrect procedural
vehicle for the challenge because the petitioner did not meet the
requirements of In re Jones. Rice, 617 F.3d at 807. Significantly,
the Fourth Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction
over the habeas motion because Rice was unable to satisfy the rule
from In re Jones. Id.
As even Copeland must acknowledge, Rice was decided in 2010,
four years after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arbaugh.
Notably, the Fourth Circuit considered Arbaugh when deciding Rice,
citing the case in a footnote regarding the jurisdictional nature of

2

COPELAND V. KASSELL

1:17CV78

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
another rule. Rice, 617 F.3d 802, 810 n.7 (citing Arbaugh, 546 U.S.
at 515). In addition, the Fourth Circuit has continued to dismiss
cases without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction where the petitioner
has failed to show that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See,
e.g., Moore v. Stewart, 2018 WL 333138 (4th Cir. Jan. 9, 2018)(citing
Rice for the proposition that a district court lacks jurisdiction
where a petitioner has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating
that § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the
validity of his detention); Redd v. Wilson, 703 Fed.Appx. 196 (4th
Cir. 2017)(same); Meredith v. Andrews, 700 Fed.Appx. 283 (4th Cir.
2017)(same).
Moreover, even if the Court were to assume that the Fourth
Circuit would overrule Rice and conclude that § 2255(e) is not a
jurisdictional rule, Copeland still would not be entitled to review
on

the

merits

or

to

relief

because,

as

Magistrate

Judge

Aloi

concluded, Copeland has not established that § 2255 is an inadequate
or ineffective remedy. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). In the Fourth
Circuit, the savings clause preserves only claims in which the
petitioner alleges the he is actually innocent of a conviction. Rice,
617 F.3d at 807. In other words, the savings clause does not extend
to petitioners who challenge only their sentences. See United States
v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008)(citing In re Jones,
226 F.3d at 333-34). Thus, even if Copeland could meet the other
requirements articulated in In re Jones, he has not alleged that he

3

COPELAND V. KASSELL

1:17CV78

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. Rather,
he challenges only the validity of his sentence. He therefore has not
met the requirements established in In re Jones and would not be
entitled to relief.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Court:
1)

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 16);

2)

OVERRULES Copeland’s objection (Dkt. No. 18);

3)

GRANTS the Warden’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11); and

4)

DENIES and DISMISSES Copeland’s Petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Dkt. No. 1).

It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record and the pro se petitioner, certified mail and
return receipt requested, to enter a separate judgment order, and to
remove this case from the Court’s active docket.
DATED: March 9, 2018.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4