James Lewis v. Warden Allenwood FCI
17-2555
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- James Dwight Lewis, pro se federal prisoner, was convicted in the Eastern District of Michigan of drug and firearms offenses and sentenced to life; Sixth Circuit affirmed and Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Lewis’s initial § 2255 motion and a later authorization to file a successive § 2255 were denied by the sentencing court and the Sixth Circuit, respectively.
- Lewis filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania (where he is confined) raising five claims: resentencing created a new judgment, Brady violation, ineffective assistance of counsel, actual innocence of § 922(g) under Henderson, and sentencing-enhancement innocence under Burrage.
- The Middle District dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Lewis appealed to the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo and concluded § 2255 is the proper vehicle; Lewis’s claims do not fall within the narrow safety-valve that permits § 2241 when § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective.
- The court also held venue for § 2241 lies in the district of confinement (Middle District of Pennsylvania), so the Eastern District of Michigan lacked jurisdiction over Lewis’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255 is inadequate/ineffective so Lewis can proceed under § 2241 | Lewis: Sixth Circuit denial of authorization prevents relief under § 2255, so § 2241 is available | Government: § 2255 is the proper and adequate remedy; inability to meet gatekeeping is not inadequacy | Held: § 2255 is not inadequate; § 2241 unavailable for Lewis’s claims |
| Proper venue / transfer to sentencing court | Lewis: implied need to reach sentencing court (E.D. Mich.) | Government: § 2241 petitions must be filed in district of confinement | Held: Middle District of Pennsylvania was proper venue; E.D. Mich. lacked jurisdiction over § 2241 petition |
| Actual-innocence challenge to § 922(g) under Henderson | Lewis: Henderson narrows § 922(g) so he is actually innocent of felon-in-possession | Government: Henderson does not make Lewis’s conduct noncriminal; it permits certain transfers but does not retroactively negate convictions | Held: Henderson does not apply to make Lewis’s conduct noncriminal; claim fails |
| Sentencing-enhancement claim under Burrage | Lewis: Burrage requires elements (drug-quantity/death result) to be found by jury, so his enhancement is invalid | Government: Burrage does not create a new vehicle for § 2241 relief; Apprendi/Alleyne-type claims belong in § 2255 | Held: Burrage does not make § 2255 inadequate; claim must be raised in § 2255 and fails here (also Burrage inapplicable on facts) |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1780 (2015) (narrowed scope of § 922(g) as to transfers that preserve control)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (death-result sentencing enhancement is an element that must be found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (Apprendi rule applies to facts increasing mandatory minimums)
- Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 845 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (§ 2255 not inadequate for Apprendi/Alleyne claims)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255 is the presumptive remedy; § 2241 is narrow safety valve)
- In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (§ 2255(e) safety-valve jurisprudence)