Adams v. United States

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal,Tennessee
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
• Writing for the Court: SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: Cv. 2:20-cv-02738-SHL-atc,Cr. 2:97-cr-20267-01-SHL
• Decision Date: 28 February 2024
• Parties: CHESTER ADAMS, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• topic: Civil Rights,Criminal procedure,Constitutional Law

1

CHESTER ADAMS, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Cv. No. 2:20-cv-02738-SHL-atc

Cr. No. 2:97-cr-20267-01-SHL

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

February 28, 2024

ORDER DENYING DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 11), GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART, GRANTING MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 2255 AS TO CLAIM 2, VACATING AND CORRECTING CRIMINAL JUDGMENT, DISMISSING REMAINING § 2255 CLAIMS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2241) (“§ 2241 Petition” and “§ 2255 Motion”), filed by Movant Chester Adams, Bureau of Prisons register number 16255-076, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary Victorville in Adelanto, California (ECF No. 1); the Government's Response to Defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Answer”) (ECF No. 10); Adams's motion for a default judgment (ECF No. 11); and Adams's amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“Amended § 2255 Motion”) (ECF No. 12). For the reasons stated below the Court DENIES default judgment GRANTS leave to amend as to Claim 4 and otherwise DENIES leave to amend; GRANTS relief on Claim 2, which challenges Adams's conviction on Count 4 of the superseding indictment; and VACATES the criminal judgment. The Court will enter an amended judgment in the criminal case correcting that error. The Court also DENIES the remaining claims in the § 2255 Motion.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Criminal Case No. 2:97-cr-20267

On December 16, 1997, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Tennessee returned a twenty-six-count indictment against Adams. (Criminal (“Cr.”) ECF No. 1 (sealed).) The grand jury returned a twenty-six-count superseding indictment on June 25, 1998. (Cr. ECF No. 36 (sealed).) Counts 1, 7, 15, 19, and 21 charged Adams with carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. Count 3 charged Adams with an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Counts 5, 9, 11, 17, and 23 charged Adams with Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 charged Adams with using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to the crimes of violence charged in Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23, respectively. Counts 13, 14, and 25 charged Adams, a convicted felon, with possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Count 26 charged Adams, a convicted felon, with possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

A jury trial commenced on July 21, 1998. (Cr. ECF No. 42.) On July 24, 1998, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. (Cr. ECF Nos. 46, 48.) At a hearing on September 25, 1998, then-Chief United States District Judge Julia S. Gibbons sentenced Adams to life imprisonment plus two hundred five years, to be followed by a three-year period of supervised release. (Cr. ECF No. 55.)^[1]The Court also imposed restitution in the amount of $23,899.54.

(Id.) Judgment was entered on October 2, 1998. (Cr. ECF No. 56 (sealed).) The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed Adams's conviction on Count 26 and otherwise affirmed his convictions and sentence. United States v. Adams, 214 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2000).

B. Adams's § 2255 Motion

On June 8, 2020, Adams filed his pro se § 2241 Petition and accompanying legal memorandum in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where his custodian is located. (ECF No. 1.) The claims presented are as follows:

1. “Unlawful conviction of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in Counts 13, 14, 25, and 26” in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019) (id. at PagelD 3; see also id. at PagelD 3-4, 8-12, 17-22);

2. “Unlawful conviction of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in Count 4” in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 2251 (2018), and Hueso v. Barnhart, 948 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2020) (id. at PageID 3; see also id. at PageID 1314); and

3. “Defendant was unlawfully convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) on Counts 6, 10, 12, 18, and 24” in light of Sessions and United States v. Chea, Case Nos. 98-cr-20005-1 CW, 98-cr-40003-2 CW, 2019 WL 5061085 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2019) (id. at PageID 3; see also id. at PageID 14-15).

On August 25, 2020, United States District Judge Phillip S. Gutierrez notified Adams of his intention to characterize the § 2241 Petition as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and advised him that he could either withdraw his § 2241 Petition or consent to the recharacterization. (ECF No. 3.) On September 15, 2020, Adams filed a response in which he consented to the recharacterization of his § 2241 Petition as a § 2255 motion, provided additional argument in support of his claims, and also urged that he be granted compassionate release. (ECF No. 4.) On September 29, 2020, Judge Rodriguez granted leave to amend, recharacterized the filing as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and transferred the matter to this district, where the convicting court is located. (ECF No. 5.)

The matter was docketed in this district as a § 2255 motion on October 1, 2020. (ECF No. 6.) The Court issued an order on December 8, 2020 directing the Government to respond. (ECF No. 9.) The Government filed its Answer on December 28, 2020. (ECF No. 10.) Adams did not file a reply.

On September 20, 2023, Adams filed his motion for a default judgment. (ECF No. 11.) On September 21, 2023, Adams filed his Amended § 2255 Motion, accompanied by a legal memorandum, which the Court construes as a motion seeking leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.)

C. Pending Motions

1. Motion for a Default Judgment (ECF No. 11)

Adams seeks a default judgment in this matter pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the motion is meritless for several reasons. First, the Government timely filed its Answer and served a copy on Adams. He does not claim that he did not receive it. Second, default judgments are not available in habeas litigation, Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 138 (6th Cir. 1970), and only in certain circumstances against the United States, which are not present here, Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(d). The motion is DENIED.

2. Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 12)

Adams's Amended § 2255 Motion presents the following claims:

1. “Conviction [on Counts 13, 14, 25, and 26] obtained through Sixth Amendment ‘Elemental Clause' and ‘Decriminalized Behavior'” (ECF No. 12 at PageID 37; see also ECF No. 12-1 at PageID 49-56);

2. “Decriminalized Behavior” as to Count 4 (ECF No. 12 at PageID 38; see also ECF No. 12-1 at PageID 56-61);

3. “Decriminalized Behavior” as to Counts 6, 10, 12, 18, and 24 (ECF No. 12 at PageID 39; see also ECF No. 12-1 at PageID 61-63);

4. “Conviction [on Counts 13, 14, 25, and 26] obtained through structural error” (ECF No. 12 at PageID 41); and 5. “Conviction under a statute that is unconstitutional” as to Counts 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 (ECF No. 12 at PageID 43).

Most of the claims in the Amended § 2255 Motion are copied verbatim from those in the original § 2255 Motion. The only substantive changes are (i) to Claim 1, which now also seeks relief on the basis of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (ECF No. 121 at PagelD 54-56); (ii) to Claim 4, which characterizes the alleged Rehaif error in Claim 1 of the original and Amended § 2255 Motions as structural error (id. at PageID 63-65); and (iii) to Claim 5, which argues that “stacking” the sentences for § 924(c) offenses is unconstitutional (id. at PageID 65-66).

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” A court can deny leave to amend where there has been undue delay and where the amendment would be futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

The proposed amendments to Claims 1 and 5 are untimely. Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 2255(f) provides that “[a] 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section.” In most cases, the running of the § 2255 limitations period begins to run on “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). “[F]or purposes of collateral attack, a conviction becomes final at the conclusion of direct review.” Johnson v. United States, 246 F.3d 655, 657 (6th Cir. 2001). Here, Adams's conviction became final at the expiration of the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court after the Sixth Circuit's decision on direct appeal in 2000. The § 2255 limitations period expired one year later. Although portions of the original § 2255 Motion are timely because of a newly issued retroactive Supreme Court decision, see infra p. 13 n.6, the Bruen claim in Claim 1 and Claim 5 of the Amended § 2255 Motion are untimely.

Specifically as for Claim 1, Adams's Amended § 2255 Motion (ECF No. 12-1 at PageID 54-56), challenges his § 922(g) convictions on the basis of Bruen, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. 597 U.S. at 10. However, Rule 15(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]n amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when . . . the amendment asserts a claim . . . that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out- or attempted to be set out-in the original pleading.” In the habeas context, the relevant “conduct, transaction, or...