United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Reginald Anthony Falice, an inmate who is currently
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary located in
Marion, Illinois, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the validity of his
conviction and sentence in Unites States v. Falice,
No. 3:98-cr-00244-GCM (W.D. N.C. 1998). Petitioner asserts
that he is being held in violation of the Constitution and
laws of the United States.
matter is now before the Court for review of the Petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in United States District Courts, which provides
that upon preliminary consideration by the district 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) gives this Court the authority
to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases.
was sentenced on July 25, 2000, to concurrent life sentences
after a jury convicted him on one count of interstate
domestic violence resulting in bodily injury and death, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a), 2261(b), and 2266, and
one count of using or carrying a firearm during and in
relation to murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1), 924(j), and 1111 in the Western District of North
Carolina. His conviction was affirmed the following year by
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. See United States v.
Falice, 18 Fed.Appx. 210 (4th Cir. 2001).
then, Petitioner has brought multiple challenges to his
conviction and sentence pursuant to Section 2255. See
Falice v. United States, No. 3:14-640-GCM (W.D. N.C.
Nov. 18, 2014) (identifying Petitioner's attempts to
obtain relief from his judgment of conviction). He has also
initiated multiple civil lawsuits raising challenges to his
criminal prosecution and has incurred monetary sanctions from
the Western District of North Carolina for his
“propensity to usurp the Court's resources by
filing vexatious and harassing litigation against judges,
attorneys and other people.” Falice v. Unites
States, No. 3:03-cv-00068-GCM (W.D. N.C. Feb. 28, 2003);
see also Falice v. Unites States, No.
3:13-cv-629-FDW (W.D. N.C. Dec. 11, 2013) (reciting
Petitioner's litigation history).
incarcerated at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, on October 17, 2016, he filed a petition for relief
under Section 2241. Falice v. Unites States of
America, No. 5:16-cv-01204-HE (W.D. O.K.) (Doc. 1). The
United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma stated that due to the filing restrictions that have
been imposed in the North Carolina District Court,
“Petitioner appears to capitalize on his temporary
confinement at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City.
. . as an opportunity to circumvent these filing restrictions
and the circuit authorization requirements accompanying his
successive § 2255 motion.” Falice v. Unites
States of America, No. 5:16-cv-01204-HE (W.D. O.K. Oct.
25, 2016) (Report and Recommendation, Doc. 4). The Oklahoma
District Court ruled that Petitioner's claims should be
construed “as a challenge to the validity of his
conviction and sentence” under Section 2255 and
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. (Order
Adopting Report and Recommendation, Doc. 7).
alleges that his conviction was obtained illegally under a
statute that is not federal law, perjury and discrimination
occurred during his trial, and that his sentence was void
from the beginning due to a violation of the separation of
powers between the legislative, judicial, and executive
branches. (Doc. 1, pp. 6, 7). Unfortunately, however, most of
his claims are unclear and confusing.
prisoner who has been convicted in federal court is generally
limited to challenging his conviction and sentence by
bringing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
court which sentenced him. See Kramer v. Olson, 347
F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 2003). Under very limited
circumstances, a prisoner may employ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to
challenge his conviction and sentence. More specifically,
Section 2255(e) contains a “savings clause” which
authorizes a federal prisoner to file a Section 2241 petition
where the remedy under Section 2255 is “inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
“A procedure for postconviction relief can fairly be
termed inadequate when it is so configured as to deny a
convicted defendant any opportunity for judicial
rectification of so fundamental a defect in his conviction as
having been imprisoned for a nonexistent offense.”
In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 1998).
In order to trigger the savings clause, a petitioner must
meet three conditions: (1) he must show that he relies on a
new statutory interpretation case rather than a
constitutional case; (2) he must show that he relies on a
decision that he could not have invoked in his first Section
2255 motion and that applies retroactively; and (3)
he must demonstrate that there has been a “fundamental
defect” in his conviction or sentence that is grave
enough to be deemed a miscarriage of justice. Brown v.
Caraway, 719 F.3d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 2013); see also
Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2012). The
Seventh Circuit has made it clear that “there must be
some kind of structural problem with [S]ection 2255 before
[S]ection 2241 becomes available. In other words, something
more than a lack of success with a [S]ection 2255 motion must
exist before the savings clause is satisfied.”
Webster v. Daniels, 784 F.3d 1123, 1136 (7th Cir.
satisfies none of these requirements. He does not rely on new
statutory interpretation, and while it appears he is alleging
fundamental defects in his conviction, he fails to explain
how a Section 2255 proceeding would be “inadequate and
ineffective.” He merely states that Section 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective because it is “controlled by
United States agents under watch of the United States of
America.” (Doc. 1, p. 4). Based on the Petition, he is
challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence,
which could be raised in a Section 2255 proceeding. As
previously mentioned, Plaintiff did raise the legality of his
conviction and sentence in three Section 2255 petitions.
See Falice v. United States, No. 3:12-cv-610-GCM
(W.D. N.C., Oct. 19, 2012) (dismissing Section 2255 motion as
successive). As such, his claims could have been brought in
his direct appeal or in his original Section 2255 motions.
a lack of success and limitation on filing successive motions
does not render a Section 2255 motion an inadequate remedy,
Section 2241 is not the proper vehicle for review of
Petitioner's conviction and sentence, and the Petition
will be dismissed with prejudice.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § ...