United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division
L. Wright Allen United States District Judge.
the Court is Petitioner Jackie Victor Adams' Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (ECF No. 1), and Respondent Eric D. Wilson's Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 11). This Court referred the matter to a
United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and
Recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Adams has previously filed two other petitions for habeas
corpus. The first was filed on May 11, 2009 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, the federal district in which he was sentenced. The
petition was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and
asked the Eastern District of North Carolina to resentence
him under the appropriate sentencing guidelines. The petition
was dismissed after the Eastern District of North Carolina
determined that Mr. Adams had waived his right to appeal any
aspect of his conviction or sentence except upon grounds of
ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial
misconduct, and that Mr. Adams had failed to present such
claims. United States v. Adams, No. 5:07cr26, slip
op. at 3 (E.D. N.C. July 18, 2014).
second was filed in this Court on January 20, 2015 and
presented claims for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. The petition argued that Mr. Adams' sentence-which
was enhanced in part because of provisions in the Armed
Career Criminal Act-was unconstitutional. Mr. Adams'
claims were premised upon Johnson v. United States,
135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and United States v. Newbold,
791 F.3d 455 (4th Cir. June 30, 2015). ECF No. 12 at 1-2. On
April 25, 2016, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation recommending dismissal without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Adams'
proper path for relief would have been to file a § 2255
petition in his sentencing court. See Adams v.
Clarke, No. 2:15cv235, slip op. at 2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 19,
addition, the Court informed Mr. Adams that because of the
statute of limitations, "he must file a § 2255
petition in the district in which he was sentenced,
delineating his prayer for relief pursuant to
Johnson before June 26, 2016, or pursuant to
Newbold before June 30, 2016." Id. at
2. The Court also advised him that any § 2255 petition
may be deemed successive and would require prior
authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the
20, 2016,  Petitioner filed a motion for
authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. §
2255 petition. The motion was filed in the Fourth Circuit on
June 24, 2016 and denied on June 27, 2016. In re Jackie
Victor Adams, No. 16-9565, slip op. at 1 (4th Cir. June
27, 2016). On July 28, 2016, Petitioner again filed a motion
for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 petition. This motion was filed in the Fourth
Circuit on August 2, 2016 and denied on August 17, 2016.
In re Jackie Victor Adams, No. 16-3015, slip op. at
1 (4th Cir. August 17, 2016).
Adams then filed the instant Petition, which was received in
this Court on September 12, 2016. The Petition again
challenges the legality of Mr. Adams' detention under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 and argues that his sentence should be
vacated because it was "above the statutory maximum of a
922(g) and 924(a)(2)" and he "was sentence[d] as
[an] armed career criminal." ECF No. 1 at 6-8. On
February 13, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF
U.S.C. § 2241 authorizes the federal court to issue a
writ of habeas corpus to state and federal prisoners who are
"in custody of violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States." A § 2241 habeas
petition typically "challenges the execution of a
federal prisoner's sentence, including such matters as
the administration of parole, computation of a prisoner's
sentence by prison officials, prison disciplinary actions,
prison transfers, types of detention, and prison
conditions." Gonzalez-Martinez v. Drew, No.
8:llcv437, 2011 WL 6982247, at *4 n.1 (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2011)
(quoting Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d
Cir. 2001)). A prisoner must file a § 2241 habeas
petition in the federal district in which he or she is in
custody. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434
savings clause of § 2255 allows a prisoner to pursue
traditional habeas relief by petition under § 2241 when
it appears that the remedy allowed by § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the
prisoner's detention." Darden v. Stephens,
426 Fed.App'x 173, 174 (4th Cir. 2011). A § 2255
motion is inadequate or ineffective when: "(1) at the
time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the
Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2)
subsequent to the prisoner's direct appeal and first
§ 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the
conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to
be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the
gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is
not one of constitutional law." Id.
a § 2241 motion filed by a federal prisoner seeks to
attack a conviction or sentence . . . and does not satisfy
the savings clause" of § 2255, the district court
"lacks jurisdiction" over the § 2241 motion
"and is required to dismiss it." Galloway v.
United States, No. 2:16cv348, 2016 WL 8943463, at *2
(E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2016). Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit has
not extended the Savings Clause to petitioners only
challenging their sentence. United States v. Poole,
531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008).
Report and Recommendation filed on June 26, 2017 recommends
denying Mr. Adams's § 2241 Motion and granting Mr.
Wilson's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 18. In relevant part,
the Report and Recommendation concludes that the instant
Petition raises the same claims as those in Mr. Adams'
previous § 2241 petition. This Court previously
determined that Mr. Adams had not demonstrated that the
remedy afforded by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention and,
accordingly, relief was unavailable to him under § 2241.
The Court concluded that any claim for relief pursuant to
Johnson should be brought in the sentencing district
as a § 2255 petition before June 26, 2016, and any claim
pursuant to Newbold should be brought before June
30, 2016. See Adams v. Clarke, No. 2:15cv235, slip
op. at 2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2016). The Magistrate Judge found
that Mr. Adams had not filed any such claims. Furthermore,
although Mr. Adams was instructed previously by this Court
that his claim could not be considered under § 2241, he
nonetheless filed the instant Petition pursuant to §
2241. The ...