Danmola v. United States
5:23-cv-00234
| W.D. Okla. | Apr 15, 2024Background
- Yusufu Danmola, a federal prisoner, filed an amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence.
- Danmola was convicted in 2017 in the Northern District of Texas for being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and sentenced to 115 months of imprisonment.
- He previously challenged his conviction/sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but those requests were denied.
- In his § 2241 petition, Danmola presented two grounds: (1) the unconstitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and (2) the denial of early release eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B).
- The matter was reviewed by a magistrate judge, who recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (Ground One) and failure to state a claim (Ground Two).
- The District Court conducted de novo review, adopted the recommendation, dismissed the petition, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under § 2241 for conviction challenge | § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional; § 2255 mechanism is unconstitutional & inadequate | Prior attacks under § 2255 were denied; § 2255(e) savings clause does not apply | No jurisdiction—savings clause unmet, so § 2241 unavailable |
| Denial of early release (RDAP) violates Due Process | Ineligibility for early release under § 3621(e)(2)(B) violates protected liberty interest | No liberty interest in discretionary early release; regulation valid | No due process violation—no protected liberty interest in early release |
| Denial of early release violates Equal Protection/Privileges & Immunities | Ninth Circuit allows early release for similar prisoners; exclusion is unequal | Tenth Circuit and governing law allow exclusion of firearm offenders, not bound by Ninth Circuit decisions | No violation—BOP and Tenth Circuit not bound by Ninth Circuit |
| Certificate of Appealability | Entitled as constitutional issues raised | No substantive showing of denial of right | COA denied—standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (discussing the § 2255(e) savings clause for § 2241 petitions)
- Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230 (2001) (upholding BOP's authority to exclude firearm offenders from RDAP early release)
- Martin v. Rios, 472 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2007) (confirming BOP's regulation excluding firearms offenders from early release eligibility)
- Standifer v. Ledezma, 653 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2011) (no liberty interest in discretionary early release after RDAP)
- Fristoe v. Thompson, 144 F.3d 627 (10th Cir. 1998) (BOP not required to follow Ninth Circuit's approach to RDAP early release)