Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Skinner v. Mosely

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

June 6, 2019

Jesse Manuel Skinner, #35713-019, Petitioner,
Mrs. Bonita S. Mosley, Warden, Respondent.


          Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge


         Jesse Manuel Skinner, (Petitioner), proceeding pro se, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is a federal prisoner presently in custody at Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge.

         The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss the Petition in this case without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return. (ECF No. 12). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

         The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Report of the Magistrate, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

         Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on August 14, 2018. (ECF No. 12). Petitioner filed timely objections on August 27, 2018. (ECF No. 16). On October 19, 2018, Petitioner filed a “Notice of Order.” (ECF No. 19). On December 17, 2018, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum” moving this Court to conduct a hearing. (ECF No. 22). Thereafter, on January 11, 2019, Petitioner moved to amend his objections, (ECF No. 24), and attached amended objections to his motion, which this Court granted on January 16, 2019. (ECF No. 25). On January 28, 2019, Petitioner again filed amended objections to the Report. (ECF No. 28). This Court will Consider all of Petitioner's objections, (ECF Nos. 16, 24, & 28), Petitioner's “Notice of Order, ” (ECF No. 19), and Petitioner's “Motion for Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, ” (ECF No. 22). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

         The Report recites the factual and procedural background giving rise to this action. Briefly, Petitioner was charged in a twelve-count indictment related to the distribution of controlled substances, resisting arrest, and firearms violations. United States v. Skinner, No. 1:02-CR-93- DCB-JMR, 2015 WL 461663, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 4, 2015). After a jury trial, on June 9, 2003, Petitioner was convicted of nine of the twelve counts. Id. Petitioner was sentenced on January 14, 2004, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for a total term of imprisonment of forty-five years in the custody of the BOP. United States v. Skinner, 1:02-cv-93-DCB (S.D.Miss. Feb. 17, 2004) (Judgment) (ECF No. 136).

         Petitioner filed a direct appeal in the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed his sentence and conviction on June 1, 2005. United States v. Skinner, 132 Fed.Appx. 554, 555 (5th Cir. 2005). Thereafter, Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court, which was denied on the merits on July 14, 2009. United States v. Skinner, No. CIV A 1:06CV1091-DCB, 2009 WL 2030427 (S.D.Miss. July 14, 2009). Petitioner then appealed the denial of his § 2255 motion, which the Fifth Circuit denied. Petitioner filed two subsequent § 2255 motions, which were both denied. Both § 2255 motions were denied as successive petitions without authorization; however, both § 2255 motions were also considered on the merits and the court found that Petitioner's arguments still failed. See United States v. Skinner, No. 1:14-cv-238-DCB, 2015 WL 461663, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 4, 2015) (“But even if Skinner had successfully certified his second motion, his argument would still fail.”); Skinner v. United States, No. 1:17-cv-151-DCB, 2018 WL 522780, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Jan. 23, 2018)[2] (“This successive motion has not been certified by the Fifth Circuit as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Nor would it be, as it brings forth no new evidence nor is it based on a new rule of constitutional law. For that reason alone, it must be dismissed. Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the petition.”).


         In his § 2241 Petition, it appears that Petitioner attacks his criminal conviction and sentence and seeks immediate release from BOP custody.[3] The crux of Petitioner's argument is essentially that he is “being held illegally because the United States lacked [federal] territorial and criminal [jurisdiction] . . . .” (ECF No. 1 p. 37). Petitioner also argues he is “actually innocent of these nonexistent federal offenses . . . .” (ECF No. 1 p. 38).

         The Magistrate Judge suggests that the instant petition be dismissed without prejudice because: “The Petition is devoid of allegations suggesting that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective such that the savings clause would apply to permit Petitioner to raise his claims under a § 2241 petition.” (ECF No. 12 p. 6).

         Many of Petitioner's “objections” are not specific because they are either a rehash of his initial Petition or do not direct the Court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations. First, Petitioner attempts to object to the Magistrate Judge's statement:

As grounds for submitting the present habeas action, Petitioner appears to claim that the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to enact criminal statutes related to drug crimes and therefore lacked jurisdiction to prosecute, convict, and sentence Petitioner. [Doc. 1 at 14-16.] While the allegations and arguments set forth in the Petition are difficult to understand, it appears that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.