(HC)McCoy v. Warden at USP Atwater
1:24-cv-00121
E.D. Cal.Jan 30, 2024Background
- Reggie L. McCoy, a federal prisoner, is in custody at USP Atwater and filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- He challenges the validity of his conviction and sentence from the Middle District of Florida, dated July 1, 1991.
- McCoy claims the judgment is void because it was not executed by the U.S. Marshals as allegedly required by certain federal statutes.
- He does not allege actual innocence, but rather a procedural defect in the execution of his judgment and commitment order.
- The court screened the petition and determined it lacked jurisdiction because § 2241 cannot be used to collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence except in narrow circumstances.
- The court directed summary dismissal of the petition and notified McCoy of his right to object within 21 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under § 2241 to challenge conviction | Judgment is void due to improper execution by non-marshal officers | § 2241 does not allow collateral attack on conviction; no saving clause grounds | Court lacks jurisdiction; dismisses |
| Savings clause applicability | Claims entitlement under savings clause, asserting inability to proceed under §2255 | No basis for savings clause; Plaintiff fails to show inadequacy/ineffectiveness | Savings clause not met; dismisses |
| Claim of actual innocence | No claim of actual innocence presented | No evidence or argument warranting innocence exception | No actual innocence; cannot proceed |
| Merits of procedural defect claim | Claims procedural defect voids the judgment and imprisonment | Any alleged defect is clerical/correctable and does not void custody | Claim meritless; does not void custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. _ (2023) (savings clause under § 2255(e) does not permit use of § 2241 for statutory interpretation claims barred by § 2255 limits)
- Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1988) (collateral attack on conviction must be through § 2255 in sentencing court)
- Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2006) (general rule: § 2255 is exclusive remedy for federal prisoner)
- Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinction between sentence attacks and execution challenges in habeas proceedings)
- Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) (criteria for savings clause applicability)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence standard in collateral review)