Casey v. Batts
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the 12 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge VanDervort; DENIES the 5 APPLICATION to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees or Costs filed by Lisa Casey; DISMISSES 1 and 4 Peti tioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and the Clerk is directed to remove this matter from the Court's docket. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 6/12/2012. (cc: Petitioner, pro se and counsel of record) (mjp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
LISA CASEY,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-0066
MYRON BATTS, Warden,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are Petitioner’s Application Under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus by a Person in
Federal Custody and Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees.
(Doc. Nos. 1, 4, 5).
By Standing Order,
this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R.
Clarke VanDervort for submission of findings and recommendation
regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his findings
and recommendation (“PF&R”) on August 8, 2011, in which he
recommended that the court DENY Petitioner’s Application to
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. No. 5), DISMISS
Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. Nos. 1 and
4) and REMOVE this matter from the court’s docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing
1
days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort’s Findings and Recommendation.
The failure of any
party to file such objections within the time allotted
constitutes a waiver of such party’s right to a de novo review
by this court.
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir.
1989).
On August 15, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion to Extend
Time to File Objection to Proposed Findings and Recommendation.
(Doc. No. 14).
The court granted this motion, and gave the
Petitioner until October 25, 2011 to file any objection.
No. 15).
(Doc.
Petitioner filed a pro se letter to the court on
September 23, 2011, which the court construes as her objections.
(Doc. No. 16).
She then filed a second letter supplement to her
original objection on January 18, 2012.
(Doc. No. 19). The
court has reviewed de novo those portions of the PF&R to which
the Movant objects and FINDS that the objections lack merit.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the
Magistrate Judge’s PF&R.
BACKGROUND
The Petitioner pled guilty in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Virginia to one count of wire
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and one count of
attempted bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
United
States v. Casey, Criminal Action No. 1:06-cr-0071 (W.D. Va. July
2
11, 2007).
The Petitioner was sentenced to a 96-month term of
imprisonment as to each count, to run concurrently.
No. 47.
Id. at Doc.
The sentencing court also imposed a three-year term of
supervised release as to Count One and a five-year term of
supervised release as to Count 14, to run concurrently.
Id.
On
July 18, 2007, Petitioner filed her Notice of Appeal, which the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b)
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Id. at Doc. No.
62.
Thereafter, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Western
District of Virginia.
Casey v. United States, Civil Action No.
1:08-cv-80057 at Doc. No. 67.
After an evidentiary hearing, the
District Court dismissed the Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion.
Doc. Nos. 93 and 94.
Id. at Doc. No. 97.
Id. at
Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal.
By Order entered on January 27, 2010, the
Fourth Circuit denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability
and dismissed her appeal.
Id. at Doc. No. 101.
On September 9, 2010, Petitioner filed a letter in the
Western District of Virginia challenging the validity of her
conviction.
Casey v. United States, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-
80824 (W.D. Va. September 9, 2010).
The court construed the
letter as a Section 2255 motion and dismissed it as successive.
Id. Doc Nos. 104, 105, 107.
Petitioner filed her third § 2255
3
Motion on October 5, 2010 in the Western District of Virginia.
Casey v. United States, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-80290 at Doc.
No. 109 (W.D. Va. October 5, 2010).
The court again dismissed
this § 2255 motion as successive.
Petitioner then filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 with
the Fourth Circuit, requesting an order authorizing the district
court to consider a second or successive application for relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The Fourth Circuit denied Petitioner’s
Motion on December 8, 2010.
Casey v. United States, Case No.
1:06-cr-0071, Doc. No. 112.
Thereafter, Petitioner filed two
additional § 2255 motions in the Western District of Virginia,
both of which were denied as successive.
1:10-cv-80311, 1:11-cv-80313.
See Civil Action Nos.
On January 27, 2011, Petitioner
filed the instant letter-form Petition requesting relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2241.
ANALYSIS
Objection I.
In her letter-form pro se objections, the Petitioner states
“I object to the findings and rulings on the basis that the
sentence in my opinion is being carried out illegally, since I
did submit evidence proven [sic] that I am in fact innocent of
the crimes I was sentenced for.”
(Doc. No. 16, p. 1).
In the PF&R, the Magistrate Judge found that the grounds
for relief in Petitioner’s assertion of her actual innocence as
4
a grounds for relief is not appropriately considered under a §
2241 motion.
(Doc. No. 12 at p. 6).
Section 2241 is merely a
general grant of habeas corpus authority.
351 F.3d 1049, 1055 (11th Cir. 2003).
Medberry v. Crosby,
More specific grants of
habeas corpus authority are found in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for
prisoners in state custody and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for federal
prisoners.
Section 2255 provides:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf
of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by
motion pursuant to this section, shall not be
entertained if it appears that the applicant has
failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court
which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him
relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by
motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Section 2255 also provides:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court
established by Act of Congress claiming the right to
be released upon the ground that the sentence was
imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by
law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may
move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate,
set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
From the language of § 2255, Petitioner is a
“prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion
pursuant to this section.”
5
The Petitioner is asserting that she is actually innocent,
which is properly considered under a § 2255 motion.
Because the
Petitioner’s motions pursuant to § 2255 were denied by the
sentencing court, in order to have her § 2241 petition
entertained by this court, Petitioner has the burden of proving
that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective.
Re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000).
In
As the Magistrate
Judge correctly notes, a remedy under § 2255 is not inadequate
or ineffective simply because the Petitioner is procedurally
barred from filing a motion or the motion has been denied.
See
In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997)(citations
omitted).
The Petitioner properly filed her first § 2255 motion
in the Western District of Virginia, was granted an evidentiary
hearing, and the court ultimately dismissed her Motion as
lacking merit.
Furthermore, she was denied authorization from
the Fourth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255
Petition, as is procedurally required.
See In re Goddard, 170
F.3d 435, 436 (4th Cir. 1999).
Because Petitioner has offered no proof that the remedy
provided to her by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, § 2255
directs that Petitioner’s § 2241 motion shall not be entertained
by this court.
The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that
the Petitioner’s § 2241 motion should be dismissed.
therefore OVERRULES the Petitioner’s first objection.
6
The court
Objection II.
Petitioner also makes a number of assertions regarding what
she considers to be the “injustice” of her conviction.
She
states that she has been denied access to the original
investigative files of her case, and notes that she cannot
afford an attorney to represent her.
(See Doc. Nos. 16 and 19).
She also provided citations to two cases which she believes are
pertinent to her § 2241 motion, Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057
(9th Cir. 2003), and Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012).
The Plaintiff’s objection is general and conclusory, and is
not entitled to a de novo review by this court.
“[T]his Court
need not conduct a de novo review when a party ‘makes general
and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a
specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations.’”
Ashworth v. Berkebile, No. 5:09-cv-01106,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138413, at *6-7 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 27, 2010)
(citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)).
The Plaintiff has failed to point the court to any specific
errors in the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R.
For this reason, the
court OVERRULES the remaining statements in the Plaintiff’s
Objections, and finds that they lack merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner’s Application to
Proceed Without Payment of Fees (Doc. No 5) is DENIED;
7
Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 (Doc. Nos. 1, 4)
is DISMISSED; and the Clerk is directed to remove this matter
from the court’s active docket.
Additionally, the court has considered whether to grant a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A
certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied only upon a showing that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by this court is debatable or wrong and
that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). The court concludes that the governing
standard is not satisfied in this instance.
Accordingly, the
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to Petitioner, pro se, and counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 12th day of June, 2012.
Enter:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
8
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?