Bradley v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:18-cv-47
| Decision Date | 17 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 2:16-cr-12,CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:18-cv-47 |
| Parties | JAMAR BRADLEY, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Movant Jamar Bradley ("Bradley"), who is currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, as amended and supplemented. Docs. 1, 8, 15. The Government filed a Response, and Bradley filed a Reply. Docs. 18, 34. Bradley also filed a number of other Motions, to which the Government filed Responses.1 Docs. 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 36, 38, 39. For the reasons which follow, I RECOMMEND the Court DENY Bradley's § 2255 Motion, DENY Bradley's Motion to Dismiss, doc. 38, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and CLOSE this case, and DENY Bradley in forma pauperis status on appeal and a Certificate of Appealability. I GRANT Bradley's construed Motions toAmend and his Motion for Leave to Supplement. Docs. 21, 25, 33. I DENY Bradley's Motion to Change Venue, doc. 26.
Bradley was indicted along with 18 co-defendants—including Bradley's mother and stepfather—in a 30-count indictment related to an extensive drug-trafficking conspiracy. United States v. Bradley, 2:16-cr-12 ("Crim. Case"), Doc. 3. Specifically, Bradley was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (count 1); conspiracy to use, carry, or possess firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) (count 2); several counts of possession of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (counts 4, 5, 17, 18, 20, 21); possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (count 22); using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during a drug trafficking crime or crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (counts 23, 25); and attempted interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (count 24).
Bradley's appointed attorney, Jason Tate, filed numerous pre-trial motions on Bradley's behalf, including a motion to suppress evidence obtained through Court-authorized wiretaps. Crim. Case, Docs. 353, 355-59, 361, 375. Bradley and Mr. Tate negotiated a plea agreement with the Government under which Bradley would plead guilty to the conspiracy charge (count 1), and, in exchange, the Government agreed to: not object to any recommendation that Bradley receive a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; not file a 21 U.S.C. § 851enhancement, if applicable; and move the Court to dismiss the remaining counts against Bradley.2 Crim. Case, Docs. 515, 516.
The Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood held a change of plea, or Rule 11, hearing, during which Brunswick Police Department Detective Michael Sapp provided the factual basis for the plea, Judge Wood accepted Bradley's plea, and Judge Wood directed the United States Probation Office to prepare a pre-sentence investigation report ("PSR"). Crim. Case, Doc. 797. The probation officer prepared a draft PSR, and the Government and Bradley's counsel both submitted objections to the draft PSR. The probation officer then prepared and submitted a final PSR (which resolved the Government's objection in the Government's favor) and an addendum, noting Bradley's unresolved objections. Crim. Case, Doc. 743. Bradley's counsel also filed a motion for downward variance. Crim. Case, Doc. 716. Judge Wood conducted a lengthy sentencing hearing. Doc. 768. Ultimately, Judge Wood sustained one of Bradley's objections to the PSR, overruled the others, denied Bradley's motion for downward variance, and sentenced Bradley to 215 months' imprisonment. Id. The sentence imposed was near the midpoint of the 188- to 235-month range recommended under the advisory Guidelines, as found by Judge Wood. Id.
Bradley has now filed this § 2255 Motion, as amended and supplemented, challenging his sentence and conviction. Doc. 1, 8, 15. The Government filed a Response, and Bradley filed a Reply. Docs. 18, 34. Bradley has also filed a number of Motions in this case. The Court will address Bradleys' various pending Motions first and then addresses Bradley's § 2255 claims.
In various convoluted filings, Bradley asks the Court to set aside the judgment in his criminal case and invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3).3 The Court denied Bradley's first motion seeking relief under Rule 60(d)(3) as baseless. Crim. Case., Docs. 911, 912. Bradley then filed his "Motion for Leave to Correctly Request Permission to [Pursue] a Rule 60(d)(3) Claim," which is currently pending. Doc. 21. In that Motion, Bradley states his initial motion was merely a request for permission to file a Rule 60 motion and should not have been denied, and, ostensibly, asks for permission to file a motion under Rule 60. Id. Despite that Motion not being ruled on, Bradley then filed another motion in which he asks the Court to set aside the judgment in his criminal case under Rule 60(d)(3). Doc. 25.
In terms of the substance of Bradley's Rule 60 request, he contends the judgment should be set aside because the indictment "was obtained by fraud on the Court when the Prosecutor and Judges presented what they knew to be false material evidence to the Grand Jury Panel." Doc. 25 at 2. Bradley argues the prosecution used Michael Sapp as its lead witness, and he works for the same police department that his mother and stepfather sued in a civil action in 2014. Id. Bradley states Judge Wood presided over this civil action, entered orders, and learned details about the civil case before she sentenced him, his mother, and stepfather in the criminal case. Id. Bradley contends Judge Wood and former Magistrate Judge Baker did not recuse themselves in his criminal matter "after being fully aware of the retaliation against [him], and his parents that arose from their civil case that was granted in Bradley's parents favor." Id. at 3. Bradley stateshis parents were arrested the day after their civil suit settled. Id. Finally, Bradley contends the actions of Judge Wood and Judge Baker violated his right to due process, and this Court should set aside his judgment of conviction. Id. at 4-5.
The Government opposes Bradley's Motions, arguing that he cannot attack the judgment in his criminal case through Rule 60(d)(3). Docs. 23, 28 at 3. In the alternative, the Government avers Bradley's Motions should be denied on the merits. The Government alleges the standard for fraud on the court is demanding and must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 4. The Government also argues Bradley does not set forth sufficient facts to support any claim of fraud. Id. at 5.
Bradley's request for the Court to set aside the judgment in his criminal case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) is procedurally improper. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 simply cannot be invoked to set aside a judgment in a criminal prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) (). While a Rule 60(d)(3) motion may be used to attack "some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings," it cannot be used to attack "the substance of the federal court's resolution of a claim on the merits." Cano v. United States, 796 F. App'x 647, 649 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005)). A motion that attacks a "federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits," or which "seeks to add a new ground for relief" is not a proper Rule 60(d)(3) motion, but is, instead, a request for relief under § 2255. Id.
Here, Bradley attacks the judgment in his criminal case based on allegations of fraud by law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and the assigned judges. Doc. 25. Bradley attacks thesubstance of the judgment in the criminal case but does not attack the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings.4 Therefore, Bradley's Rule 60 Motion is procedurally improper.
However, it appears Bradley is confused about the nature of a Rule 60 motion. Given that Bradley cites cases treating Rule 60 motions as second or successive § 2255 motions and he asked for permission to file his Rule 60 Motion in this case, the Court construes Bradley's Rule 60 Motion as a request to raise his fraud allegations as an additional claim for § 2255 relief in this proceeding. See Docs. 21, 25 (citing Scotton v. United States, No. 17-10541, 2017 WL 7511339, at *2 (11th Cir. Nov. 22, 2017)). In other words, the Court construes Bradley's Rule 60 Motion as a request to amend his § 2255 Motion to add claims that the indictment in his criminal case was obtained by fraud and that the judges assigned to the criminal case should have recused themselves because of their role in the civil action involving Bradley's co-defendants. Based on that construction, the Court GRANTS Bradley's Rule 60 Motion, docs. 21, 25, construed as Motions to Amend.5 The Court addresses the merits of the claims in Bradley's construed Motions to Amend in § V(A) of this Order and Report and Recommendation.
Next, Bradley requests a change in venue "because of the conflict of interest." Doc. 26. Bradley does not elaborate on this conclusory allegation. The Government emphasizes that Bradley cites no authority for his request and opposes the request for the same reasons set forth in its Responses to Bradley's § 2255 and Rule 60(d)(3) Motions. Doc. 29 at 3.
The Court DENIES Bradley's Motion. He presents no supporting authority, and he fails to present any facts supporting his claimed conflict of interest.
To continue reading
Request your trial