Riggleman v. U.S. Government

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER overruling Mr. Riggleman's 25 Objections, adopting the Magistrate Judge's 22 PF&R, denying the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, denying Petitioner's 5 Amended Pet ition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, denying Petitioner's 11 Supplemental Section 2241 Petition, denying Petitioner's 10 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, and dismissing the matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 10/12/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
ELISHA RIGGLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00491

U.S. GOVERNMENT,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending are the following: (1) Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed July 20, 2020 [Doc. 1]; (2) Petitioner’s Amended Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed July 23, 2020 [Doc. 5]; (3) Petitioner’s
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, filed September 21, 2020 [Doc.
10]; and (4) Petitioner’s Supplemental Section 2241 Petition, filed September 24, 2020 [Doc. 11].
This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate
Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge
Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on July 9, 2021. [Doc. 22]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended
that the Court deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. 1],
Petitioner’s Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. 5], and
Petitioner’s Supplemental Section 2241 Petition [Doc. 11], and deny Petitioner’s Application to
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Doc. 10].
I.
The Court is required “to make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The Court need not review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to
which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (emphasis added) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.”). Further, the Court need not conduct 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.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
II.
Mr. Riggleman’s underlying criminal conviction was for Threatening to Kidnap
and Assault a Federal Officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). He was sentenced to one
hundred twenty (120) months imprisonment followed by a period of three (3) years supervised
release. United States v. Elisha Riggleman, Criminal Action No. 5:11-cr-00124. In the instant
action, Mr. Riggleman contends this sentence is excessive because, under the statute, the maximum
sentence is 120 months. [Doc. 1].
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn noted this is Mr. Riggleman’s third Petition requesting
Habeas Corpus relief from his conviction and sentence.1 [Doc. 22]. Mr. Riggleman’s previous
attempts at obtaining habeas relief were brought under § 2255, the habeas statute providing relief
to federal prisoners. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In this case, Mr. Riggleman brings his petitions under §
2241, the Court’s general authority to issue habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The PF&R includes a detailed procedural history of Mr. Riggleman’s challenges to his conviction
and sentence. [Doc. 22, pp. 3-7].
1

Mr. Riggleman objected to the PF&R, asserting Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn did
not address any of Mr. Riggleman’s arguments regarding the calculation of his sentence or the
imposition of supervised release in addition to a term of incarceration. [Doc. 25]. Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn concluded Mr. Riggleman’s claims are properly cognizable in a § 2255 petition,
not a § 2241 petition, for the reasons stated in the PF&R. [Doc. 22]. For this reason, Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn recommended this Court deny the petitions because they are procedurally barred.
[Doc. 22].
This Court agrees with the Magistrate that Mr. Riggleman has not met the statutory
requirements to bring a § 2241 petition. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn properly determined Mr.
Riggleman’s petition asserts relief pursuant to § 2255. Mr. Riggleman previously brought an
unsuccessful § 2255 petition. The Fourth Circuit denied his motion to file a successive § 2255
petition. His subsequent Rule 60(b)(6) Motion, construed as a successive § 2255 petition, was
denied. Clearly, Mr. Riggleman’s third attempt at obtaining relief under § 2255, particularly
without leave of the Fourth Circuit in which to do so, must be denied.
As such, Mr. Riggleman’s objection is without merit. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
did not consider Mr. Riggleman’s substantive arguments because these arguments are procedurally
barred. The Court thus OVERRULES Mr. Riggleman’s objection.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Mr. Riggleman’s objection
[Doc. 25], ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R [Doc. 22], DENIES the Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. 1], DENIES Petitioner’s Amended Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. 5], DENIES Petitioner’s Supplemental
Section 2241 Petition [Doc. 11], and DENIES Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees and Costs [Doc. 10]. The Court hereby DISMISSES the matter.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this written opinion and order to
any counsel of record and any unrepresented party herein.
ENTER: October 12, 2021