Joseph Massaro v. Warden Lewisburg USP
700 F. App'x 91
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Joseph Massaro, a federal prisoner, was convicted in 1993 of racketeering and murder in aid of racketeering and sentenced to life; the Second Circuit affirmed.
- Massaro filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the Supreme Court allowed the claim to proceed but relief was denied on the merits on appeal.
- In January 2017 Massaro filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing sentencing errors and that Alleyne rendered his mandatory life sentence unlawful.
- The District Court screened the § 2241 petition under Rule 4 and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding § 2255 was the proper vehicle and the § 2255 “safety valve” did not apply.
- Massaro also claimed the BOP wrongly denied compassionate release, but the record showed no BOP motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii) and such BOP decisions are generally committed to the agency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2241 is available because § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective | Massaro: § 2255 is inadequate because Alleyne undermines his sentence and he cannot obtain relief via § 2255 | Government: § 2255 is the proper remedy; § 2241 relief is unavailable absent a narrow, intervening-change-in-law scenario | Court: § 2255 is not inadequate; § 2241 is improper for these claims |
| Whether Alleyne allows § 2241 collateral relief for pre-Alleyne sentences | Massaro: Alleyne requires facts increasing punishment be submitted to a jury, so his sentence is unlawful | Government: Alleyne does not make the underlying conduct non-criminal; Alleyne-based claims cannot be pursued via § 2241 | Court: Alleyne-based claims cannot be raised in § 2241 and do not fit the safety-valve |
| Whether sentencing court misapplied Guidelines (wrong edition and wrong murder Guideline) | Massaro: Court used a Guidelines edition not in effect and applied § 2A1.1 (premeditated) instead of § 2A1.2 | Government: These are sentencing errors reviewable under § 2255, not a basis for § 2241 | Court: Claims are sentencing/GUIDELINES errors, not intervening change rendering conduct non-criminal; not eligible for § 2241 relief |
| Whether BOP’s denial of compassionate release is judicially reviewable | Massaro: BOP improperly denied compassionate early release | Government: § 3582(c)(1)(A) vests the motion power with the BOP; courts generally do not review BOP’s decision | Court: BOP’s filing decision is not judicially reviewable here; no BOP motion exists in record |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard of review for § 2241/§ 2255 questions)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255 is presumptive remedy; safety-valve narrow)
- Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255(e) inadequate/ineffective standard)
- In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (limits on using § 2241 where § 2255 available)
- Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 845 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (Alleyne-based claims cannot be raised in § 2241)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)