United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge.
is a federal prisoner in custody in South Carolina at
FCI-Edgefield. Petitioner was sentenced by the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Tennessee. He is seeking habeas
relief under § 2241 and proceeding in this action
pro se. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C.,
the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for
relief and submit findings and recommendations to the
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of the pro se pleadings
pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Anti-Terrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The review has been
conducted in light of the following precedents: Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden,
Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir.
1995)(en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712
F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d
1291 (4th Cir. 1978); and Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). The Petitioner is a pro
se litigant, and thus his pleadings are accorded liberal
construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007)(per curiam); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S.
319 (1972). Even under this less stringent standard, the
petition is subject to summary dismissal.
this court is charged with screening Petitioner's lawsuit
to determine if “it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 of Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. Following the required initial review, it is
recommended that the Petition submitted in this case should
states his challenge is to the validity of his sentence as
imposed. (ECF No. 1 at 2). Petitioner states he is
challenging the decision dated December 8, 2016, where after
Johnson, on a successive § 2255 motion,
Petitioner's sentence was corrected to “time
served” and Petitioner was released on supervised
release. Petitioner states he was sentenced without any
explanation for a time-served sentence. (ECF No. 1 at 2).
March 2005, Petitioner pleaded guilty to a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a felon in possession of a firearm.
U.S. v. Jackson, No. 3:02-cr-12 (E.D.T.N. ECF No.
187). Petitioner was sentenced under the ACCA as an armed
career criminal and received a sentence of 250 months
incarceration with five years supervised release.
Id. at ECF No. 150-1.
2016, Plaintiff requested leave to file a successive §
2255 based on Johnson and this was granted by the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals . Id. at ECF No. 210.
The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Tennessee
found Petitioner's 250 month sentence and five years
supervised release exceeded “his maximum authorized
sentence as a non-ACCA offender under § 922 (g)(1) by
130 months' incarceration and two years' supervised
release.” Id. at ECF No. 210. Petitioner's
successive § 2255 motion was granted; Petitioner was
given a “time served” sentence and released.
Id. at ECF No. 210. On December 8, 2016,
Petitioner's supervised release was amended to three
years. Id. at ECF No. 210.
October 18, 2017, Petitioner agreed that he had violated his
supervised release and it was revoked. He received a sentence
of 8 months incarceration and 2 years supervised release.
Id. at ECF No. 223.
April 15, 2019, Petitioner agreed that he had violated his
supervised release and it was revoked. Petitioner received a
sentence of 10 months incarceration and no supervised
release. Id. at ECF No. 234.
11, 2019, Petitioner filed another § 2255 in the
sentencing court arguing the same grounds as argued in the
present § 2241, that his previous “time
served” sentence is unlawful. Id. at ECF No.
convicted in federal court are obliged to seek habeas relief
from their convictions and sentences through §
2255.” Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th
Cir. 2010) (citing In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194
(4th Cir. 1997)). Petitioner cannot challenge his federal
conviction and sentence under § 2241, unless he can
satisfy the § 2255 savings clause, which states:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion
pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it
appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by
motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court
has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the ...