Patton v. Saad
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN PART, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE. The court ADOPTS IN PART the R&R [ECF No. 22 ], to the extent consistent with t his Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 21 ] and ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 3/23/2020. (Copy to PS petitioner via CM, RRR.)(wrr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HAROLD EUGENE PATTON,
Petitioner,
v.
Civ. Action No. 1:17-CV-186
(Kleeh)
JENNIFER SAAD,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN PART, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”)
by
United
States
Magistrate
Judge
Michael
J.
Aloi
concerning the Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to § 2241 (the
“Petition”)
filed
by
pro
se
petitioner
Harold
Patton
(“Petitioner”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts
the R&R in part.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 30, 2017, the Petition was filed. Petitioner was
directed to pay the $5.00 filing fee, which the Court received on
March 26, 2018. On December 1, 2018, the case was reassigned to
the Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, United States District Judge.
Petitioner filed a Letter with the Court regarding the status of
the case. On July 17, 2019, he filed a mandamus action in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
PATTON V. SAAD
1:17-CV-186
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN PART, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
On August 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for Default
Judgment in this Court. On October 16, 2019, the Magistrate Judge
entered his R&R. Petitioner received the R&R on October 18, 2019,
and filed Objections to it on November 1, 2019. The petition for
writ of mandamus was denied on February 20, 2020. ECF Nos. 25, 26.
II.
PETITION
Petitioner asserts four grounds in the Petition: (1) actual
innocence, (2) malicious prosecution, (3) ineffective assistance
of counsel, and (4) improper use of a sentencing enhancement under
21 U.S.C. § 851. He claims that he is actually innocent because he
was incarcerated during “at least 40% of the conspiracy” for which
he was convicted. He argues that the witness testimony used against
him was false, that the Government retaliated against him, and
that there were available defenses that his counsel did not pursue
or explain to him. He argues that three out of the four state cases
that prompted his sentencing enhancement never exceeded one year,
as required. He asks the Court to “vacate, set aside or remand his
sentence, appoint new counsel, hold an evidentiary hearing, remove
the enhancement, sentence Petitioner for his ‘role’ in the instant
case or dismiss Petitioner’s indictment with prejudice.”
2
PATTON V. SAAD
1:17-CV-186
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN PART, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
III. REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge writes that “[p]risoners
seeking to challenge the validity of their convictions or their
sentences are required to proceed under § 2255 in the district
court of conviction.” ECF No. 22 at 6. On the other hand, a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241, generally, “is
intended to address the execution of a sentence, rather than its
validity, and is to be filed in the district where the prisoner is
incarcerated.” Id. at 6-7.
The Magistrate Judge discusses the “savings clause” under
§ 2255, by which a prisoner can be awarded relief under § 2241 if
§ 2255 relief is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The Magistrate Judge found
that Petitioner is not entitled to relief under the savings clause
pursuant to In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), and
United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018). The
Magistrate Judge also found that all of Petitioner’s claims are
barred by res judicata. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the
Court deny the Petition with prejudice and deny the Motion for
Default Judgment.
The R&R informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days
from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written
3
PATTON V. SAAD
1:17-CV-186
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN PART, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
objections,
identifying
the
portions
of
the
Report
and
Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such
objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file
written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo
review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by
the Circuit Court of Appeals.” Petitioner timely filed objections.
IV.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review
de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt,
without
explanation,
any
of
the
magistrate
judge’s
recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete
v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603–04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will
uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been
made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
V.
OBJECTIONS
Petitioner makes the following objections:
•
Petitioner
objects
to
the
Magistrate
Judge’s finding that he does not qualify
for relief under the savings clause;
4
PATTON V. SAAD
1:17-CV-186
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN PART, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
•
Petitioner
objects
to
the
Magistrate
Judge’s finding that certain claims are res
judicata; and
•
Petitioner
objects
to
the
Judge’s
finding
that
his
enhancement claim is improper.
Magistrate
sentencing
Therefore, the Court reviews these objections de novo and reviews
the remainder of the R&R for clear error.
VI.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner is challenging the validity of his conviction and
his sentence. His petition, therefore, is inappropriately filed
under § 2241 unless he can show that he meets the requirements of
the savings clause under § 2255. Because he is challenging both
his conviction and his sentence, he is subject to both the Jones
and the Wheeler tests described in the R&R.
Petitioner writes that his remedy via § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention because “[t]he
case law being presented within the Petitioner’s memorandum of
support is a non-constitutional amendment and therefore cannot
withstand the stringeous [sic] scrutiny of a 2255 petition.” As
discussed above, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner did
not meet the standards in Jones and Wheeler.
In Petitioner’s objections, he contends that he is entitled
to Jones and Wheeler relief via the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C.
5
PATTON V. SAAD
1:17-CV-186
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN PART, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
§ 3582(c). He did not raise this argument in the Petition. Relief
under the First Step Act is awarded at the sentencing court’s
discretion. See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391,
§ 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194 (2018) (allowing the “court that imposed
a sentence for a covered offense” to “impose a reduced sentence as
if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . were
in effect at the time the covered offense was committed”); see
also Kittrells v. Warden, No. 1:18-01365, 2019 WL 4317024, at *5
(“Similar to a Section 2255 Motion, a Section 3582 Motion must be
filed in the underlying criminal action and be addressed by the
sentencing court.”). Petitioner was not sentenced in this Court;
therefore, to the extent that Petitioner is requesting relief under
the First Step Act, this Court has no authority to grant it.
Because the Court cannot grant relief under the First Step
Act,
and
this
was
Petitioner’s
sole
objection
regarding
the
application of the savings clause, the Court, after finding no
clear error, adopts the R&R with respect to the application of
Jones and Wheeler. Petitioner may not seek relief under § 2241
because
he
has
not
demonstrated
that
a
§
2255
petition
is
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Accordingly, the Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction to consider the Petition. Finding that
6
PATTON V. SAAD
1:17-CV-186
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN PART, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
AND DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE
the Court does not have jurisdiction over the Petition, the Court
will not reach the merits of Petitioner’s remaining objections.
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the court ADOPTS IN PART the R&R
[ECF No. 22], to the extent consistent with this Memorandum Opinion
and Order. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Default Judgment
[ECF No. 21] and ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED and STRICKEN
from the Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the pro se Petitioner via certified mail,
return receipt requested.
DATED: March 23, 2020
/s/ Thomas S. Kleeh
______________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?