Jones v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 14 October 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:12-cv-02398-STA-cgc
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
• Parties: MARCUS DEANGELO JONES, Petitioner, v. D.R. STEPHENS, Warden Respondent.

MARCUS DEANGELO JONES, Petitioner, v. D.R. STEPHENS, Warden Respondent.

Case No. 2:12-cv-02398-STA-cgc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

October 14, 2015

ORDER DENYING PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241, CERTIFYING APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("§ 2241 Petition") (Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus, Jones v. Stephens, 2:12-cv-02398-STA-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), ECF No. 1), accompanied by a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Mot. for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, id., ECF No. 2), filed by pro se Petitioner, Marcus DeAngelo Jones,¹ Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") register number 12520-045, who was at the time he commenced this action, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Memphis, Tennessee ("FCI Memphis").² For the following reasons, this Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's § 2241 Petition.

I. BACKGROUND

A. General Background

Jones is serving a federal sentence resulting from convictions in two cases from the Western District of Missouri. This petition concerns both of these cases. On March 24, 2000, a federal grand jury sitting in the Western District of Missouri returned a three-count indictment against Jones. The first count charged Jones, a convicted felon, with possession of a firearm on October 9, 1999, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(c). The second count charged that, on or about August 18, 1999, Jones knowingly made a false statement to acquire a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(B). The third count charged Jones with unlawful possession of a firearm, on or about August 18, 1999, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(c). A jury trial commenced on July 24, 2000, and on July 25, 2000, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts of the indictment.

On November 2, 2000, United States District Judge Scott O. Wright sentenced Jones as an armed career criminal to a term of imprisonment of three hundred twenty-seven (327) months, to be followed by a five year supervised release. United States v. Jones a/k/a Lee, No. 2:00-cr-04010-C-SOW (W.D. Mo.). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision. United States v. Jones, 266 F.3d. 804 (8th Cir. 2001).

On April 26, 2000, Jones was found guilty by a jury in the Western District of Missouri for four counts of distributing, and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. United States District Judge Scott O. Wright sentenced Jones to a term of imprisonment of three hundred twenty-seven (327) months, to be followed by a five year supervised release, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case number 2:00-cr-04010-C-SOW (W.D. Mo.). United States v. Jones a/k/a LeeNo. 99-4041-CR-C-SOW (W.D. Mo.) The Eight Circuit affirmed the decision. United States v. Jones, 275 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3584(c), 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a), and Program Statement 5880.28 of the Sentence Computation Manual (CCCA of 1984), the BOP calculated Jones' concurrent sentence to equate to a 327 month, or twenty-seven years, six months, and eight days, aggregate term of imprisonment. (Decl. of Goulet, Jones v. Stephens, ¶ 9, ECF No. 12-1) Jones is scheduled to be released on January 17, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

B. Petitioner's Previous § 2241 Petitions

Jones has previously filed four § 2241 Petitions, under different legal theories, before this Court and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. On July 1, 2005, Jones filed a § 2241 Petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, challenging his continued confinement, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582.³ The Southern District of Illinois dismissed Jones' § 2241 Petition as a successive § 2255 Motion, holding that "[e]ssentially, this habeas corpus action is a thinly veiled effort to file a motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. However, the Seventh Circuit has held that such an action is,in substance, a collateral attack on a conviction that must be pursued under 28 U.S.C. § 2255."⁴ (Jones v. Revell, No. 05-467-JPG, 2005 WL 3481543, at * 2 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2005).

On February 6, 2009, Jones filed his first § 2241 Petition in the Western District of Tennessee as to his firearm conviction, raising the following claims:

1. He was sentenced as an armed career criminal under a statute that was wrongly applied and no longer applicable to his case in light of Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008);

2. He should not have been convicted of violating § 922(g) because the chief law enforcement officer authorized him to possessing a firearm, knowing his criminal history; and

3. He is being denied adequate medical treatment by the BOP.

(§ 2241 Pet., Jones v. Castillo, No. 2:09-cv-02066-STA-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), 3-5, ECF No. 1.) This Court dismissed Jones' first § 2241 Petition, finding that Jones was not entitled to invoke the relief sought by § 2241. Judgment was entered on March 17, 2010. (J., id., ECF No. 7.) Jones appealed this Court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Jones v. Castillo, 489 F. App'x 864 (6th Cir. 2012).

On July 7, 2009, Jones filed his second § 2241 Petition before this Court, raising the following claims:

1. He is actually innocent of his sentence because it was enhanced by a defective prior state conviction under Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963);

2. He is being denied adequate medical treatment by the BOP;

3. He is being denied the right to a religious "no flesh kosher food diet" by the BOP.

(§ 2241 Pet., Jones v. Castillo, No. 2:09-cv-02455-STA-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), 3-5, ECF No. 1).

This Court dismissed Jones' second § 2241 Petition, finding that Jones was not entitled to invoke the relief sought by § 2241. Judgment was entered on September 29, 2009. (J., id., ECF No. 4.) Jones filed his first motion for reconsideration on October 8, 2009 (First Mot. for Reconsideration of J., id., ECF No. 5), which was denied by the Court on December 1, 2009 (Order Denying First Mot. for Reconsideration of J., id., ECF No. 6). On January 11, 2010, Jones filed a second motion to alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative, motion for consideration (Second Mot. for Reconsideration of J., id., ECF No. 7), which the Court denied on May 13, 2013 (Second Order Denying Mot. for Reconsideration of J., id., ECF No. 8).

On August 4, 2010, Jones filed his third § 2241 Petition before this Court, arguing the following claims:

1. The Government misled the Court during the § 2255 case to obtain a dismissal for lack of proof, and his conviction was obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process, a fair trial, the right to the effective assistance of counsel, compulsion, and discovery;

2. His sentence as a career criminal is invalid in light of intervening, retroactive decisions by the United States Supreme Court;⁵

3. His sentence is in excess of the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions; and

4. The limitation of successive § 2255 motions violates the Suspension Clause.

(§ 2241 Pet., Jones v. Castillo, No. 2:10-2570-STA-dkv (W.D. Tenn.), 3-5, ECF No. 1.) On January 11, 2011, Jones filed a motion to provide additional support his § 2241 Petition. (Mot. for Leave to Suppl. § 2241 Pet., id., ECF No. 5.) On April 25, 2011, Jones filed a second motionto clarify his presentation of the second issue. (Second Mot. for Leave to Suppl. § 2241 Pet., id., 2-5, ECF No. 6.) Jones filed a third leave to supplement his third issue on July 5, 2011. (Third Mot. for Leave to Supp., id., ECF No. 7.) On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Jones' motions to supplement his § 2241 Petition but dismissed the § 2241 Petition, finding his issues to be without merit. (Order Denying § 2241 Pet., id., ECF No. 9.) Judgment was entered on July 15, 2011. (J., id., ECF No. 10.) Jones filed a Notice of Appeal to the Sixth Circuit (Not. of Appeal, id., ECF No. 13), and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision (Sixth Cir. Order Denying § 2241 Pet. Appeal, Jones v. Castillo, No. 11-6072 (6th Cir. May 31, 2013), id., ECF No. 16.)

C. Case Number 12-2398: Petitioner's Current Petition

On May 24, 2012, Jones filed his fourth § 2241 Petition before this Court. Unlike his previous petitions, Jones' instant § 2241 Petition argues that "the Bureau of Prisons is improperly adding 100 days to [his] sentence or improperly denying [him] jail credit, which has him serving a sentence that the district court did not impose." (§ 2241 Pet., Jones v. Stephens, No. 2:12-cv-02398-STA-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), 3, ECF No. 1.) Jones asks the Court to order the BOP to award his 100 days of jail credit.

On May 24, 2012, Jones accompanied his § 2241 Petition with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Mot. to Proceed in forma pauperis, id., ECF No. 2), which the Court granted on May 25, 2012 (Order Granting Mot. Proceed in forma pauperis, id., ECF No. 3). On June 20, 2012, the Court filed an order correcting the docket to reflect Warden D. R. Stephens as the sole Respondent and directing Respondent to file a response to Jones' § 2241 Petition within twenty-three days. (Order Directing Response, id., ECF No. 4.) On July 17, 2012, Respondent filed a motion for extension of time, requesting additional time to file, because the Court's June 20, 2012, Order had been improperly served to the Tennessee Attorney General and not theUnited States Attorney's Office. (Mot. for Ext. of Time, id., ECF No. 5.) On July 18, 2012, the Court granted Respondent's...