Cejas v. Adams

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by District Judge Gina M Groh on 1/17/2023. Copy to pro se petitioner by cm,rrr.(cmd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/17/2023: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (cmd).

Case 3:19-cv-00193-GMG-RWT Document 21 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 82

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
CONSTANTINO CEJAS,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:19-CV-193
(GROH)

WARDEN PAUL ADAMS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action
was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. See LR
PL P 2. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 18] on November 17, 2021.
Therein, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, the Court DECLINES TO
ADOPT the R&R.
I. BACKGROUND
Upon review of the record, the Court finds that the background and facts as
explained in the R&R accurately and succinctly describe the circumstances underlying
the Petitioner’s claims. For ease of review, the Court incorporates those facts herein.
However, the Court has outlined the most relevant facts below.

Case 3:19-cv-00193-GMG-RWT Document 21 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 83

The Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated at FCI Hazelton in West Virginia. In 2011,
the Petitioner was charged with various drug-related offenses and, as relevant here, one
count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) in the Southern District of Indiana. United States
v. Cejas, 761 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2014). Prior to a jury trial on the remaining counts, the
Petitioner pleaded guilty to the § 922(g)(5) charge. A jury found the Petitioner guilty of
the remaining counts, and he was sentenced to 480 months of imprisonment. Id. at 722.
The Petitioner previously filed a direct appeal, § 2255 petition and § 2241 petition.
On November 18, 2019, the Petitioner filed the instant petition, challenging the
legality of his conviction and sentence. ECF No. 1. The Petitioner argues that his
conviction is no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Rehaif v. United
States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (U.S. 2019). For relief, the Petitioner requests that this Court
vacate his § 922(g)(5)(A) conviction and set the matter for resentencing.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of
the magistrate judge’s findings where objection is made. However, the Court is not
required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions
of the magistrate judge to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985). Pro se filings must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard
than those drafted by licensed attorneys, but courts are not required to create objections
where none exist. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Gordon v. Leeke, 574
F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1971). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of
de novo review and of a petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28.U.S.C..'
636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v.
2

Case 3:19-cv-00193-GMG-RWT Document 21 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 84

Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R were due within fourteen plus three
days of service. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Petitioner accepted
service of Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R on November 24, 2021. ECF No. 19. The
Petitioner filed his objections on December 8, 2021. ECF No. 20. Accordingly, this Court
will review the portions of the R&R to which the Petitioner objects de novo and the
remainder of the R&R for clear error.
III. DISCUSSION
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble finds that the Petitioner is not entitled to
§.2241 relief for his conviction and sentence because he cannot meet the savings clause
of § 2255(e). ECF No. 18. In reviewing the Petitioner’s challenge to his conviction, Judge
Trumble finds the Petitioner cannot meet the three-pronged test set forth in In re Jones,
226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000), to show that relief under § 2255 is “inadequate or
ineffective.” Specifically, he finds that the Petitioner cannot satisfy the second prong,
requiring a showing that the substantive law has changed such that the conduct for which
the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal. Id. at 10–11. The R&R states,
The crime Petitioner was convicted of committing—being a prohibited
person in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—is still
a violation of law. Therefore, Petitioner cannot satisfy the second prong of
Jones.
Id. at 11.
The Petitioner objects to the R&R’s finding that he failed to satisfy the second
prong of Jones because the Supreme Court’s holding in Rehaif v. United States did not
change substantive law. See ECF No. 20. The Court reviews his objection de novo.

3

Case 3:19-cv-00193-GMG-RWT Document 21 Filed 01/17/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 85

A. Applicable Law
Generally, a prisoner seeking to challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence
must proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district court of conviction. 28 U.S.C. §.2255;
see United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 216-17 (1952). Nevertheless, pursuant to
the “savings clause,” a prisoner may challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if it appears that a § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
Under Jones, a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to challenge the legality
of a conviction when the following three conditions are met:
(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.
226 F.3d at 333–34.
B. Analysis
The Petitioner contends that Rehaif represents a change in substantive law
because it “altered the class of person that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) may punish” by limiting its
application to defendants who know that they are felons. Id. (citing United States v. Dace,
No. 16-cr-383, 2020 WL 4805761, at *2 (D. Colo. Aug. 18, 2020)). In Rehaif v. United
States, the Supreme Court clarified “that in a prosecution under § 922(g) . . . the
Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that
he knew that he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a

4

Case 3:19-cv-00193-GMG-RWT Document 21 Filed 01/17/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 86

firearm.” 139 S. Ct. at 2200.
Here, the Petitioner argues that he entered his guilty plea “even though he had a
valid license to possess the firearm . . . based on the understanding that the Government
was not required to charge and prove that Cejas knew his status” as now required under
Rehaif. ECF No. 1 at 5. Thus, he avers that he is actually innocent under § 922(g).
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the thrust of Petitioner’s objection is to the
Magistrate Judge’s determination that he cannot satisfy the second prong of Jones. The
Petitioner even cites an Order from this Court addressing the same legal issue when
declining to adopt a prior R&R in another case where a prisoner raised the same objection
to the R&R’s Jones and Rehaif analysis. See Riley v. Gomez, Civil Action No.: 3:19-CV48 (N.D. W. Va. Mar 30, 2021).
The Court agrees with the Petitioner about the R&R’s Jones analysis. If the
Government charged the Petitioner with being an alien who was illegally or unlawfully in
the United States in possession of a firearm in violation of § 922(g)(5) today, the
Government would need to prove that he knew he was an alien illegally or unlawfully in
the United States at the time of the offensive conduct.
In support of his claim, the Petitioner attached a purported police report noting that
a handgun was returned to him “after it was determined that he had a valid Indiana Gun
Permit.” ECF No. 1-2 at 2. Although this is hardly conclusive, a government-issued
permit to carry a firearm certainly raises questions about whether the Petitioner knew he
belonged to a class of individuals prohibited from possessing a firearm under § 922(g).
Upon review and consideration, the Court finds that the Petitioner can satisfy the
second prong of Jones. Rehaif constitutes a substantive change to 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)

5

Case 3:19-cv-00193-GMG-RWT Document 21 Filed 01/17/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 87

that makes the conduct Petitioner was convicted of no longer criminal. Rehaif added an
element to a conviction under §.922(g), which the Government was not required to charge
or prove at the time Petitioner pleaded guilty. Accordingly, the Court REJECTS the R&R’s
finding that the Petitioner cannot satisfy the second prong of Jones.
Additionally, the Court finds that the Petitioner has met the Jones test. 1 Under the
settled law of this circuit at the time of the Petitioner’s plea, the Petitioner’s knowledge of
his status under § 922(g)(5) was irrelevant.

However, there remains an unsettled

question as to whether the Petitioner knew, or likely knew, of his status at the time of his
plea. The Undersigned finds the Petitioner has put forward enough evidence that the
question warrants consideration. Further, as this Court has previously explained, Rehaif
creates a path where petitioners may be able to satisfy the second prong of Jones. Also,
the Court notes that Rehaif was decided after the Petitioner’s appeal and after the
sentencing court’s denial of his first § 2255 motion. Finally, the new rule is statutory rather
than Constitutional. See, e.g., Tate v. United States, 982 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2020).
Thus, the Court REJECTS the R&R’s conclusion that the Petitioner fails to satisfy
the savings clause of § 2255(e) as to his conviction.
V. CONCLUSION
Upon careful review of the materials in this case, the Court finds that dismissal of
the petition is not warranted at this time because the Petitioner has satisfied the Jones
test. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT Magistrate Judge Trumble’s Report
and Recommendation. ECF No. 18. Pursuant to the Local Rules of Prisoner Litigation
Procedure, the Respondent is ORDERED to appear and file a Response to the
Because the magistrate judge found that the Petitioner was unable to satisfy the second Jones
prong, he did not analyze the Petitioner’s challenge under the first or third prongs. ECF No. 17 at 8.
1

6

Case 3:19-cv-00193-GMG-RWT Document 21 Filed 01/17/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 88

Petitioner’s Petition. LR PL P 19.
This Court further ORDERS that this matter be RECOMMITTED to Magistrate
Judge Trumble for further proceedings to determine whether the Petitioner’s § 922(g)(5)
conviction should be vacated and to adjudicate the petition on its merits.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Petitioner
by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the
docket sheet, and to all counsel of record herein.
DATED: January 17, 2023

7