Edwards v. Kallis

Filing 10

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THE NAME OF THE SUPREME COURT CASE HE BELIEVES ENTITLES HIM TO RELIEF UNDER THE SAVINGS CLAUSE. It is hereby ORDERED that the Petitioner shall, within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this Order, p rovide the Court with the name of the Supreme Court decision which he believes entitles to him relief under the savings clause of § 2255. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi on 3/1/17. (njz) copy mailed to pro se pet via cert. return rec't mail (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/1/2017: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (njz).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BRANDON EDWARDS,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:17cv9
(GROH)

WARDEN S. KALLIS
Respondent.
ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PROVIDE THE COURT
WITH THE NAME OF THE SUPREME COURT CASE HE
BELIEVES ENTITLES HIM TO RELIEF UNDER THE SAVINGS CLAUSE
On January 30, 2017, the pro se Petitioner, Brandon Edwards, an inmate incarcerated at
FCI Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. The Petitioner pleaded guilty in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut to being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). Subsequently, it was determined that the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) applied, and he was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 180 months to be followed by five years’ supervised release. In his pending §
2241, the Petitioner challenges his sentence enhancement and seeks relief under the savings
clause of §2255 because “his claim was foreclosed by circuit precedent that has since been
overruled by a recent Supreme Court decision dealing with statutory interpretation (not
constitutional) that is retroactive on collateral review. However, the Petitioner does not identify
the Supreme Court case to which he is referring.
The Court is mindful that the Petitioner is a pro se litigant in this case. Pro se pleadings
are to be liberally construed as set forth in Haines v.Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). This rule
requires the Court to look beyond confusion of legal theories and poor syntax or sentence

construction. It does not mean that the Court is authorized to become pro se litigant’s advocate.
Despite the liberal construction afforded pro se pleadings, the court will not construct arguments
or theories for the Petitioner in the absence of any discussion of those issues. The requirement of
liberal construction also does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to
allege facts that set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dept. of Social
Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). District courts are not required "to conjure up questions
never squarely presented to them." Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d at 1278, (adding that
"[d]istrict judges are not mind readers").
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petitioner shall, within twenty-one (21)
days of entry of this Order, provide the Court with the name of the Supreme Court decision
which he believes entitles to him relief under the savings clause of § 2255.
If the Petitioner does not comply with this Order, he is hereby notified that his
petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send the Petitioner a copy of this Order via
certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.
DATED: March 1, 2017.

Bá `|v{txÄ ]É{Ç TÄÉ|
MICHAEL JOHN ALOI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2