Judge v. United States
2:11-cv-03031
D.S.C.Jan 5, 2012Background
- Petitioner Jametrius L. Judge, a self-represented federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his sentence.
- Court screens the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases and the AEDPA framework.
- Petitioner asserts Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment violations based on allegedly erroneous presentence report data affecting sentencing guidance under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) and (b)(4).
- Petitioner contends the government relied on overstated evidence and that Booker v. United States should retroactively apply to strike illegal enhancements.
- Petitioner was convicted in 2007 for possession of a firearm after prior crime, sentenced to 102 months, and direct and collateral challenges followed (2009 Fourth Circuit affirmation; 2010 §2255 denial).
- Court recommends dismissal of the §2241 petition without prejudice for lack of cognizable relief under the savings clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2241 is proper under the savings clause | Judge seeks relief under §2241 after §2255 was inadequate | Clerical/Section 2255 remains available; Booker does not retroactively apply | Not proper; §2255 not inadequate or ineffective |
| Whether Booker retroactivity salvages §2241 relief | Booker should apply retroactively to undermine enhancements | Booker not retroactive on collateral review; not applicable to petitioner | Booker not retroactive; §2241 not available |
| Whether petitioner can pursue a second/successive §2255 via §2241 | Possibly grounds for second motion under gate-keeping provisions | Booker does not create a gateway; prior §2255 denial blocks relief | No authorization for second/successive §2255; §2241 not proper |
| Whether the petition should be dismissed for lack of merit | Petition raises sentencing-law argument under Booker | Fails to meet Jones savings-clause criteria | Dismissal without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1992) (liberal construction not extending to noncognizable claims)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (screening frivolous claims from habeas petitions)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc; habeas pleadings liberally construed)
- Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983) (procedural default and screening standards)
- In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000) (savings clause test for §2241 relief)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (retroactivity and sentencing rules; not retroactive on collateral review)
- Morris v. United States, 429 F.3d 65 (4th Cir. 2005) (Booker not retroactive on collateral review; watershed rule)
- United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65 (4th Cir. 2005) (Booker retroactivity limitation on collateral review)
- Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648 (4th Cir. 2006) (district courts must screen initial filings and dismiss without merit)