Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Jackson v. Hutchinson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

October 2, 2019

Maurice Dwayne Jackson, #30538-074, Petitioner,
v.
J. Hutchinson, Acting Warden, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner 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 district judge.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Under 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.

         Furthermore, 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 be dismissed.

         DISCUSSION

         Petitioner 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, [1]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.[2] (ECF No. 1 at 2).

         In 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.

         In 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.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         On June 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. 235.

         “[D]efendants 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 ...

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.