United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
RUSSELL D. BASS, No. 13425-424, Petitioner,
B. TRUE, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. HERNDON JUDGE.
currently incarcerated in the USP-Marion, brings this habeas
corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge
the constitutionality of his confinement.
Court must evaluate the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District
Courts. Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration
by the district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,
the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to
notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives
this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
corpus cases, such as this action under 28 U.S.C. §
pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). United States v.
Bass, Case No. 01-cr-109 (N.D. Ill.). The trial court
found that he had 3 prior convictions for crimes of violence,
and accordingly sentenced him as an armed career criminal to
an enhanced term of 300 months. See 18 U.S.C. §
924(e)(1). On April 28, 2003, the judgment and sentence were
affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Bass,
325 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S.
the intervening years, Petitioner made a number of attempts
to challenge his sentence, without success. His original
motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was
dismissed as untimely. United States v. Bass (N.D.
Ill. Case No. 05-cv-1776, filed June 2, 2005, dismissed May
23, 2006 (Doc. 20)).
December 2009, he filed a habeas action in this Court under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, Bass v. Hollingsworth, Case
No. 09-cv-1059-JPG. He challenged his
career-criminal-enhanced sentence on the basis that his 1985
Illinois conviction for burglary should not have been counted
as one of the 3 predicate convictions because it was for
burglary of a salvage yard, not a residence, and posed no
risk of physical injury to another person. See 720
Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/19-1 (formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 38,
¶ 19-1(a)). That petition was dismissed on September 16,
2011, because the Court found that the challenge should have
been raised under § 2255. (Docs. 12, 15, in Case No.
next sought permission from the Seventh Circuit to bring a
successive petition for writ of habeas corpus under §
2255. Bass v. United States, No. 11-2793 (7th Cir.).
That action was dismissed on August 29, 2011.
2012, he filed a second habeas corpus petition under §
2241 in this Court, again challenging the enhanced sentence
based on the 1985 Illinois burglary conviction. Bass v.
Walton, Case No. 12-cv-1119-DRH. This Court dismissed
the petition, again finding that he had the opportunity to
raise his argument in a§ 2255 motion. (Doc. 6 in Case
2013, Petitioner brought another action in the Northern
District under § 2255, raising a challenge to his
sentence under the new Supreme Court decision in Descamps
v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). (Doc. 78 in
criminal case, No. 01-cr-109). That challenge was rejected in
a July 9, 2015, order, because the Supreme Court had not made
Descamps retroactive on collateral review. (Doc. 108
in criminal case).
the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States,
-- U.S. --, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), Petitioner filed an
application with the Seventh Circuit to bring a successive
§ 2255 petition. Bass v. United States, No.
16-2186. That argument failed, and Petitioner's
application was dismissed on June 7, 2016. (Doc. 6 in No.
made another attempt with the Seventh Circuit to bring a
successive § 2255 action, this time raising both
Johnson and Mathis v. United States, --
U.S. --, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). Bass v. United
States, No. 16-2688. Mathis held that an Iowa
burglary conviction did not qualify as a predicate violent
felony offense under the ACCA because the Iowa statute, which
criminalized entry into a vehicle, was broader than the
“generic” offense of burglary listed in §
924(e)(2)(B)(ii) - which must involve the unlawful entry into
a building or other structure. Mathis, 136 S.Ct. at
2250-51, 2257. The Seventh Circuit again denied permission
for a successive § 2255 motion, but this time stated:
To the extent that Bass argues that Mathis provides
an independent basis for authorization distinct from his
previous claim under Johnson, we note that
Mathis is a case of statutory interpretation; it
does not announce “a new rule of constitutional law,
made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme
Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2); see
Dawkins, 2016 WL 3854238, at *2. An independent claim
based on Mathis must be brought, if at all, in a
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Doc. 6 in 7th Cir. No. 16-2688). Following this direction,
Petitioner filed the instant ...