Opinion
C/A No. 0:19-3248-TMC-PJG
03-25-2020
Raymond Craig Johnson, Petitioner, v. Warden, F.C.I. Edgefield, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The petitioner, Raymond Craig Johnson, a self-represented federal prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The action is filed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.). The court previously issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that original petition (ECF NO. 1) be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, Petitioner filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) and this matter was referred back to the assigned magistrate judge. (ECF No. 14.) Having reviewed the Amended Petition in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes that it should be summarily dismissed despite Petitioner's amendment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner, an inmate in Edgefield, South Carolina Federal Correctional Institution, indicates that he was convicted of an unspecified offense in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in February 2016, and sentenced to 140 months' imprisonment. (Am. Pet., ECF No. 17-3 at 1, 7.) He files this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing the sentencing court improperly found that he had three prior state court convictions that increased his federal sentence and erred accepting his guilty plea without ordering a mental health evaluation. (Id., ECF No. 17-1 at 2; ECF No. 17-3 at 6.) Petitioner also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the Government's actions after a Franks hearing, failing to investigate Petitioner's criminal history and sentencing issues, failing to contest the accuracy of statements made in the Franks hearing, and failing to request a mental health evaluation. (Id., ECF No. 17-1 at 1.) Petitioner asks the court to properly calculate his sentence. (Id., ECF No. 17-1 at 12, ECF No. 17-3 at 7.)
The docket for the Middle District of North Carolina indicates Petitioner pled guilty to interference with commerce by robbery, 18:1951(a). United States v. Johnson, Criminal Docket No. 1:15-cr-199-LCB-2.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Amended Petition filed in this case pursuant to the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214; and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Rules Governing Section 2254 are applicable to habeas actions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se pleadings, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for "all civil actions").
B. Analysis
A petitioner cannot challenge his federal conviction and sentence through § 2241 unless he can show under the "savings clause" of § 2255(e) that a § 2255 motion is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing that if a federal prisoner brings a § 2241 petition that does not fall within the scope of the savings clause, the district court must dismiss the unauthorized habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that a petitioner must establish the following criteria to demonstrate that a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of a prisoner's sentence:
(1) [A]t the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner's direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect.United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018).
In recommending the original petition be summarily dismissed, the court found that Petitioner failed to explain why his claims regarding the calculation of his sentence could not have been raised by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and therefore, that Petitioner failed to satisfy the savings clause of § 2255. See In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) ("[T]he remedy afforded by § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual has been unable to obtain relief under that provision, or because an individual is procedurally barred from filing a § 2255 motion.") (internal citations omitted). The Amended Petition does not change the court's analysis of Petitioner's claims about the calculation of his sentence. And, the Amended Petition's new claims of ineffective assistance of Petitioner's counsel and the sentencing court's refusal to order a mental health evaluation suffer from the same deficiency. Petitioner fails to explain why he could not have raised any of these claims in his § 2255 motion. Moreover, Petitioner fails to identify a substantive change in the law that affects Petitioner's conviction or sentence.
Petitioner filed such a motion on July 7, 2016 but the sentencing court summarily dismissed it without prejudice. United States v. Johnson, Cr. No. 1:15-cr-199-LCB-2 (ECF No. 65).
Petitioner cites to the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), but that decision applies only to convictions for possession of a firearm by a person barred from possessing one under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Because Petitioner was not convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), Petitioner cannot use Rehaif to satisfy the test in Wheeler.
Because Petitioner is foreclosed from bringing a § 2241 habeas petition in this court to challenge his sentence, Petitioner's remedy, if any, appears to be to seek permission to file a § 2255 motion in the court in which he was sentenced by filing a motion for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Therefore, this case should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction over the Amended Petition. See Wheeler, 886 F.3d at 426 (holding that the failure to meet the requirements of the savings clause is a jurisdictional defect that may not be waived).
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the court recommends that the Amended Petition in the above-captioned case be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file a return. March 25, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/_________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The parties' attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).