Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:04-CV-880-Y.
March 11, 2005.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER
This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a federal prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
B. PARTIES
Petitioner Nathaniel Howard Thomas, Reg. No. 07052-078, is a federal prisoner incarcerated in the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas.
Respondent Cole Jeter is Warden of the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas.
C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the instant proceeding, Thomas challenges the validity of his three 1998 federal drug-related convictions and sentences in cause no. 4:98-CR-014(27) in the Northern District of Texas, Sherman Division. (Petition at 2-3.) Following his convictions, Thomas sought both direct and collateral review, including at least two previous § 2255 motions to vacate filed in the convicting court, to no avail. See PACER, U.S. Party/Case Index, Civil Docket for Case ## 4:00-CV-407-PNB 4:04-CV-275-RAS-DDB. The first § 2255 motion was denied on June 5, 2003, and the second was dismissed as improvidently filed on September 29, 2004. It appears that a third § 2255 motion remains pending in the convicting court at this time. See id., Civil Docket for Case # 4:00-CV-407-PNB, entry for July 28, 2004. Thomas filed the instant petition under § 2241 in this district, where he is currently serving his sentences. The government has moved that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Resp't Motion to Dismiss 1-5.)
D. DISCUSSION
In his petition, Thomas raises the following grounds:
(1) He was denied effective assistance of counsel during trial and on appeal;
(2) He was denied due process by the sentencing court's bias, conspiracy against him, and refusal to adjudicate his § 2255 claims;
(3) His sentences violate Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004); and
(4) The government engaged in "fraud upon the court" during trial and in its response to his § 2255 motion. (Petition at 4-5; Pet'r Memorandum at 2.)
To the extent Thomas attacks his convictions and sentences, his claims are not cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to § 2241. Nor is a § 2241 petition the proper forum for his claims attacking the denial or manner in which the sentencing court handled his postconviction proceedings. See Hopper v. Tapia, 88 Fed. Appx. 780, 781, 2004 WL 326772, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 8, 2004) (not designated for publication in the Federal Reporter).
Typically, § 2241 is used to challenge the manner in which a sentence is executed. See Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688, 694 (5th Cir. 2000). Section 2255, on the other hand, is the primary means under which a federal prisoner may collaterally attack the legality of a conviction or sentence. See Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). Section 2241 may be used by a federal prisoner to challenge the legality of a conviction or sentence only if he can satisfy the mandates of the so-called § 2255 "savings clause." See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). Section 2255 provides that a prisoner may file a writ of habeas corpus if a remedy by § 2255 motion is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To establish that a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective, the prisoner must show that: (1) his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense, and (2) his claim was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in his trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion. Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000).
Toward that end, Thomas contends that he is actually innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted and that § 2255 proved to be inadequate and ineffective largely due to the actions of the sentencing court. (Pet'r Response at 3-6; Pet'r Memorandum 12-16.) He asserts that the judge was biased against him, refused to adjudicate the claims raised in his § 2255 motion, and conspired against him by appointing the same attorney who unsuccessfully represented him during trial and on appeal. Thomas does not argue, however, that there is a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense(s) nor does he argue that his claims were previously foreclosed by circuit law. By failing to address the savings clause prerequisites as set forth in Reyes-Requena, Thomas has failed to show that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. See Pack, 218 F.3d at 452.
II. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the government's motion to dismiss be GRANTED, and this petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 be dismissed with prejudice.
III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten (10) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The court is extending the deadline within which to file specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation until April 1, 2005. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual finding or legal conclusion accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc op. on reh'g); Carter v. Collins, 918 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1990).
IV. ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that each party is granted until April 1, 2005, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, a response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.