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.

Moore v. Krueger

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division

July 26, 2017

DEMETRIUS MOORE, Petitioner,
v.
J.E. KRUEGER, Warden, FCI Pekin Respondent.

          ORDER & OPINION

          JOE BILLY McDADE UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The matter before the Court is Petitioner Demetrius Moore's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, Petitioner's Amended Petition (Doc. 5) is denied.

         Background

         On January 14, 2014, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of bank robbery by force or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2113(d), and one count of knowingly brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). See Plea Agreement, United States v. Moore, No. 2:13-cr-00041-LA-1 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 14, 2014). In doing so, Petitioner pled guilty to taking approximately $2, 400 from the presence of a teller by force, violence, and intimidation at U.S. Bank in Butler, Wisconsin. Id. On April 23, 2014, Judge Adelman sentenced Petitioner to a total of 102 months incarceration, followed by five years of supervised release. See J., United States v. Moore, No. 2:13-cr-00041-LA-1 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 24, 2014). On June 13, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Moore v. United States, No. 2:16-cv-00719-LA (E.D. Wis. Jun. 13, 2016). On June 23, 2016, Petitioner's § 2255 motion was denied. See J., Moore v. United States, No. 2:16-cv-00719-LA (E.D. Wis. Jun. 23, 2016).

         On October 31, 2016, Petitioner filed an “Emergency Petition for Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum.” (Doc. 1). Because it was unclear whether Petitioner was seeking to file a § 2255 motion or a § 2241 petition, the Court ordered Petitioner to file an Amended Complaint identifying which way Petitioner wanted to proceed. (Doc. 2). On January 9, 2017, Petitioner filed this Amended Petition, indicating that he wished to proceed as a § 2241 petition. (Doc. 5). At the time Petitioner filed, he was incarcerated at the federal correctional institute in Pekin, Illinois. (Doc. 9). Petitioner was subsequently transferred to the federal correctional institute in Yazoo City, Mississippi. (Doc. 8). Because of the change in the location of Petitioner's custody, the Court applied the precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and transferred the case to the Southern District of Mississippi. (Doc. 9). Then, the Southern District of Mississippi transferred the case back to the Central District of Illinois, because it was bound by Fifth Circuit precedent, which holds that jurisdiction over a § 2241 habeas petition belongs to the court of custody when the petition is originally filed. (Doc. 15). The Southern District of Mississippi also consulted with parties, both of which consented[1] and preferred that the case be transferred back to the Central District of Illinois. (Doc. 15).

         Therefore, the case was transferred back to the Central District of Illinois. (Doc. 15). Because the case had originally been misfiled in the Springfield Division of the Central District, Judge Myerscough transferred the case to the Peoria Division, which is the judicial district in which the federal correctional institution in Pekin lies. See July 25, 2017 Text Order.

         Petitioner's Amended Complaint argues that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over the land where he committed his crime because the Wisconsin Governor did not cede jurisdiction. Petitioner argues that 40 U.S.C. § 3112 and Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943), require the state governor to cede jurisdiction over the state in order for there to be federal criminal jurisdiction. (Doc. 5 at 2-3).

         Legal Standard

         Pro se pleadings are given liberal construction and are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Ambrose v. Roeckeman, 749 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2014). However, a court must still decide whether a petition adequately presents the legal and factual basis for a claim. Id.

         This Court, in its discretion, applies the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts to all cases that purport to be brought under Chapter 153 of Title 28 of the United States Code that are not explicitly brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, R 1(b); see also Poe v. United States, 468 F.3d 473, 477 n. 6 (7th Cir. 2006); Hudson v. Helman, 948 F.Supp. 810, 811 (C.D. Ill. 1996) (holding Rule 4 takes precedence over 28 U.S.C. § 2243's deadlines and gives court discretion to set deadlines). This includes Rule 4, which requires that the Court “promptly examine” the Petition, and dismiss it if it “plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court has examined the Petition and determined Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

         Additionally, federal prisoners, like Petitioner, who wish to collaterally attack their convictions or sentences ordinarily must do so under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2012). They may petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only in the rare circumstance in which the remedy provided under § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (which is often referred to as “the Savings Clause”). The mere fact that Petitioner's claim would be a second or successive § 2255 motion does not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. See In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 1998).

         In Davenport, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit articulated three conditions that a petitioner must meet in order to invoke the Savings Clause on the basis of a change in law. Id. at 610-612. These conditions were recently summarized in Brown v. Caraway, 719 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2013), another case in which a petitioner brought a § 2241 petition based upon a Supreme Court decision interpreting the residual clause of the ACCA. First, a prisoner “must show that he relies on a statutory-interpretation case rather than a constitutional case;” second, he “must show that he relies on a retroactive decision that he could not have invoked in his first § 2255 motion;” and third, “[the] sentence enhancement [must] have been a grave enough error to be deemed a miscarriage of justice corrigible therefore in a habeas corpus proceeding.” Id. at 586 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         Analysis

         Petitioner's Amended Complaint must be dismissed for two reasons. First, Petitioner fails to meet the Davenport requirements to be able to challenge his sentence through a § 2241 petition, rather than a § 2255 motion. ...


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.