Groves v. Atkinson
5:13-cv-01367
D.S.C.Jul 1, 2013Background
- Petitioner Kelvin Groves, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking to vacate his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine (sentenced Feb. 22, 2013).
- Petitioner alleges his sentence unlawfully included a two-point firearm enhancement; he claims he did not carry a firearm.
- Groves did not appeal his conviction and has not previously filed a § 2255 motion in his criminal case (Crim. No. 8:11-2356-JMC-5); his plea agreement waived most post-conviction challenges except prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance.
- Section 2241 generally cannot be used to attack federal convictions unless the § 2255 savings clause applies; a petitioner must typically first pursue relief under § 2255.
- The magistrate judge concluded it would be in the interest of justice to recharacterize the § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion (to be filed in the underlying criminal case) rather than dismiss it, partly because the § 2255 one-year limitation may be running.
- The report advises Groves that recharacterization requires Castro notice and an opportunity to consent, withdraw, or amend; it warns that any § 2255 motion will be subject to successive-motion restrictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper vehicle to challenge conviction/sentence | Groves contends his sentence is illegal due to a firearm enhancement and asks court to treat his § 2241 pleading as a § 2255 alleging prosecutorial misconduct | Respondent implicitly argues § 2241 is improper for direct attack on conviction; § 2255 is the proper remedy | Court recommends recharacterizing the § 2241 petition as an initial § 2255 motion and filing it in the criminal case, with Castro notice |
| Applicability of § 2255 savings clause to allow § 2241 | Groves seeks relief via § 2241 (asserting ineffective remedy under § 2255) | Respondent relies on precedent that § 2241 cannot substitute for § 2255 absent savings-clause showing; petitioner has not first filed § 2255 | Court notes petitioner has not shown § 2255 is inadequate; nonetheless recharacterization is appropriate to avoid statute-of-limitations issues |
| Requirement of Castro notice before recharacterization | Groves requests recharacterization | Court must protect petitioner from unintended consequences (e.g., successive-motion bar) | Court recommends providing Castro notice and opportunity to consent, withdraw, or amend before conversion |
| Effect of plea waiver and successive-motion restrictions | Groves argues prosecutorial misconduct exception/claims may survive waiver | Respondent points to plea-waiver language and § 2255(h) limits on successive motions | Court warns that converted § 2255 motion will be subject to waiver and § 2255(h) constraints but proceeds with recommendation to convert with notice |
Key Cases Cited
- San-Miguel v. Dove, 291 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2002) (upholding dismissal of § 2241 challenge to conviction/sentence)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (describing § 2255 savings-clause standard for using § 2241)
- Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802 (4th Cir. 2010) (§ 2255 is the proper vehicle for collateral attacks on federal sentences)
- In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 (4th Cir. 1997) (procedural rule requiring § 2255 before invoking savings clause; unsuccessful or untimely § 2255 does not make it inadequate)
- Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (district courts must notify pro se litigants before recharacterizing motions as § 2255)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (standard for district court review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object to R&R waives right to de novo review on appeal)
- United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2008) (discussing Castro implications in the § 2255 context)