Haynes v. United States

• Decision Date: 16 February 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:16–cv–4106
• Parties: Stacy M. HAYNES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois

237 F.Supp.3d 816

Stacy M. HAYNES, Petitioner,

v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

Case No. 4:16–cv–4106

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division.

Signed February 16, 2017

Thomas W. Patton, Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Petitioner.

Clifford R. Cronk, III, John K. Mehochko, Meredith R.W. DeCarlo, U.S. Attorney, Rock Island, IL, Jason M. Bohm, U.S. Attorney, Urbana, IL, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

JOE BILLY McDADE, United States District Court Judge

This matter is before the Court on the Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence (Doc. 3) filed by Stacy M. Haynes (the "Petitioner"). The motion has been fully briefed and is ready for decision. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED in Part, DENIED in Part and DISMISSED in Part. Mr. Haynes will be resentenced.

I. PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS

The instant § 2255 motion (Doc. 3) is an amended successive motion. Petitioner filed an original § 2255 motion in April 2000 that this Court heard and denied. (See Doc.1, Haynes v. United States , No. 4:00–cv–4044 (C.D. Ill.)). Petitioner's first successive § 2255 motion (Doc. 1) only contained two claims that were presented to the Seventh Circuit for authorization to proceed in this court. Petitioner has since amended his first successive § 2255 motion to include two additional claims. Since they were not presented to the Seventh Circuit panel, the Government argues that they are unauthorized claims. Paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 clearly states that a district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive application that the court of appeals has authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that the claim satisfies the requirements of this section. The term "application" is taken to refer to the habeas relief petition itself, but in this case the term refers to the § 2255 motion. See 2–28 Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 28.3. Nevertheless, a convicted prisoner is allowed to bring a successive attempt at habeas relief when such a prisoner's claim is based upon either a new rule of constitutional law or newly discovered evidence. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(4), 2255(h)(2).

Before addressing the issue of whether these two additional claims are unauthorized, there is another ancillary issue to be decided, which is whether this amended motion is even properly before the Court. The Amended Motion (Doc. 3) was made without leave of Court and without the written consent of the Government. Counsel for Petitioner was appointed in this matter pursuant to Administrative Order 15–mc–1016 (available at http://www.ilcd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders/general-orders (last visited January 24, 2017)). That Order does not state that amendments to the initial motion are presumptively allowed although one might assume that the amendment of a pro se prisoner's application for habeas corpus, which is what the § 2255 motion really is, would always naturally follow the appointment of counsel. Given the significance of the motion and the hurdles a petitioner must face if she leaves out a viable claim and tries to bring it up later in a subsequent action, there is great peril in leaving the pro se petitioner's pleading to stand without the input of the attorney appointed in the case.

But 28 U.S.C. § 2242 provides that the application for habeas corpus "may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions." Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts provides that the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules." Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure themselves also provide that they apply to proceedings for habeas corpus. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4). The Seventh Circuit has specifically held that "[t]he rules governing § 2255 do not deal with amendments for collateral review and therefore proposed amendments to § 2255 motions are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)." Rodriguez v. United States , 286 F.3d 972, 980 (7th Cir. 2002) ; see also Mayle v. Felix , 545 U.S. 644, 125 S.Ct. 2562, 162 L.Ed.2d 582 (2005) (holding the same).

Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within either twenty-one days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or twenty-one days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. The first successive § 2255 motion (Doc. 1) was "served" upon Respondent on June 9, 2016 at the latest, which is when the Clerk added a specific Assistant United States Attorney to this action despite adding the United States of America as a party on June 6, 2016 when the action was opened and docketed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 ; CDIL–LR 5.3. Petitioner did not file the Amended Motion (Doc. 3) within twenty-one days of June 9, 2016, but rather more than three months later on September 30, 2016.

Despite that, Rule 15(a)(2) also provides that in all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or leave of court. The docket does not reveal that the Government consented to the amendment and leave of court was not sought. However, the rule provides further that the Court is to freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. Given this permissive standard and the unique significance of the pro se habeas application discussed above, the Court finds it would be manifestly unfair to disallow the Amended Motion now, especially when the Court arguably acquiesced to the Amended Motion by entering an order directing the Government to respond to it. In the future though, proper leave of court should be sought. With that out of the way, the Court now turns to the issue of whether these two additional claims are indeed unauthorized and thus not capable of being heard by this Court.

Petitioner's first supplemental claim that he is actually innocent of the convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1952 cannot be heard by this Court. The Seventh Circuit authorized Petitioner to move for relief for Johnson -related issues, not this stand-alone actual legal innocence claim. Because the Court sees little utility in forcing Petitioner to pursue this claim in a § 2241 petition in front of a court unfamiliar with the case—the court in the district where he is in custody—it has engaged in extensive research into whether it can retain jurisdiction over the claim. Alas, the Court has found no applicable exceptions. This claim does not fit into the exceptions carved out in §§ 2244(b) and 2255(h) because it clearly does not rely on a new rule of constitutional law nor does it rely on newly discovered evidence.

The Court was tempted to turn to its own inherent ability to prevent miscarriages of justice in order to reach the claim. However, in United States v. Williams , 790 F.3d 1059, the Tenth Circuit thoroughly and convincingly explained why a district court lacks the authority to reach this type of unauthorized actual innocence claim in light of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214 (the "AEDPA"). That court explained that in McQuiggin v. Perkins , –––U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (U.S. 2013) —a case where the Supreme Court held that in extremely rare circumstances, an actual innocence claim can overcome 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)'s one year statute of limitations—the Supreme Court recognized that where Congress had explicitly limited petitioners to evading certain procedural bars in certain statutory provisions of the AEDPA, "Congress clearly intended that courts may no longer invoke their common law miscarriage of justice authority to allow petitioners to bypass the relevant procedural bar" and the "courts must apply the exception as modified by Congress." 790 F.3d at 1076 citing McQuiggin , 133 S.Ct. at 1934. The Williams court found that the AEDPA clearly modified the common law miscarriage of justice exception by imposing a clear and convincing burden of proof and by requiring preauthorization of successive applications for habeas relief from the appropriate courts of appeals. Id. at 1076. This Court finds the Williams court's explanation to be persuasive and concludes that it may not utilize the miscarriage of justice exception to reach Petitioner's actual innocence claim. The claim is hereby dismissed.

Petitioner's second supplemental claim—that his robbery convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 do not qualify as predicate crimes of violence under post- Johnson 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) —was also not included in the first successive § 2255 motion (Doc. 1) given to the Seventh Circuit for authorization. However, it is clearly predicated upon Johnson and thus the Court believes it is based upon a new rule of constitutional law and well within the scope of the claims the Seventh Circuit authorized this Court to reach. The Court will hear it.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that a sentence may be vacated, set aside, or corrected "upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." "Relief under § 2255 is an extraordinary remedy because it asks the district court essentially to reopen the criminal process to a person who already has had an opportunity for full process." Almonacid v. United States , 476 F.3d 518, 521 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus,...