King v. United States
| Decision Date | 30 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:20-00104-WS-N,CRIMINAL ACTION 1:15-00229-WS-N |
| Parties | STEPHEN J. H. KING, BOP Prisoner No. 15100-003, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The above-numbered actions are before the Court on the “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” dated February 13, 2020 (Crim. Doc. 41 PageID.141-154),[1] filed by Stephen J. H. King, a federal prisoner serving a sentence pursuant to a judgment issued in the above-numbered criminal action. after. Upon due consideration, and for the reasons stated herein, the undersigned finds that said petition is due to be construed as a motion to alter, amend, or vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that the construed § 2255 motion is due to be DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice, unless King moves to withdraw it within the time for objecting to this recommendation.[2]
The procedural history for this post-judgment collateral proceeding is complicated.
On October 29, 2015, the grand jury for this judicial district returned an indictment charging King with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Crim. Doc. 1). On November 30, 2015, King was appointed counsel and arraigned, pleading not guilty to the charge. (See Crim. Doc. 7; Crim. Doc. 10 at 1). However, January 14, 2016, King changed his plea and entered a plea of guilty to violating § 922(g)(1) as charged, pursuant to a written plea agreement with the Government. (See Crim. Docs. 20, 22). On April 21, 2016, the Court sentenced King to 96 months' imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. (See Crim. Doc. 32). Written judgment setting out the sentence was entered on April 29, 2016. (See id.). No party directly appealed the judgment.
In early 2020, King, now proceeding without counsel (pro se), filed an undated, handwritten “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241” with the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois, the district where he was at the time incarcerated. (Civ. Doc. 1).[3] That court received the petition on brought under §§ 2241 and 2255, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 8(b) and 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
January 21, 2020. (See Civ. Doc. 1 at 1). In response to an order of the Illinois district court directing him to “submit an amended § 2241 on th[at] court's form” (Civ. Doc. 7 at 1), King completed and filed a form “Petition for Writ of Corpus” by “Persons in Federal Custody” dated February 13, 2020. (See Civ. Doc. 10).
After reviewing the amended petition, the Illinois district court determined that it should be treated as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the criminal judgment entered against King in the above-numbered criminal action, and, without first giving King an opportunity to be heard on the issue, ordered that the motion be transferred to this Court. See (Civ. Doc. 11, PageID.156-157); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (). Said transfer was effected on February 21, 2020.
The undersigned agreed with the transferor court's assessment that King's § 2241 petition (Crim. Doc. 41, PageID.141-154) should be treated as a § 2255 motion, raising a single claim for relief: that King's sentence be vacated because his conviction under § 922(g)(1) was no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States, -- U.S. --, 139 S.Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019). See (Crim. Doc. 47 n.1, PageID.171-172); United States v. Stossel, 348 F.3d 1320, 1322 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“Federal courts are obligated to look beyond the label of a pro se inmate's motion to determine if it is cognizable under a different statutory framework.”); Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014) (). And after examining the petition, so construed, under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, the undersigned ordered, and set a deadline for, the United States to file and serve an answer, motion, or other appropriate response, and also set a deadline for King to file a reply to the response.[4] (See Crim. Doc. 47). The Government timely filed an answer opposing the § 2255 motion. (See Crim. Doc. 50). King filed no reply to the answer, and the deadline to do so has passed.
The Government's answer brought to light certain developments in this matter occurring in the Illinois district court after transfer. In a handwritten filing submitted to that court dated March 23, 2020-a month after the transfer-King reaffirmed that he “filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging [his] conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)[,]” disputed that court's determination that he “filed a 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and not a 18 U.S.C. § 2241 and that [he] advised the Court that a 18 U.S.C. § 2255 is what [he] wanted to file[,]” and claimed the Illinois district court “committed a [sic] act of perjury by falsifying legal documents and transferring [his] case to the Southern district of Alabama.”
(Crim. Doc. 50 at 16; N.D.Ill. Case No. 3:20-cv-50043, Doc. 13). On April 14, 2020, the Illinois district court entered an order on said filing stating:
Federal prisoner Stephen King's motion for proof he informed the court that he wanted to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as opposed to a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition ... is denied. Even if his amended petition did not expressly state he was seeking § 2255 relief, by informing the court he had not previously filed a § 2255 motion, it is clear that his request for relief is not under § 2241 (via § 2255(e)'s savings clause), but lies instead under § 2255, which must be filed in “the court which imposed the sentence.” § 2255(a). King does not qualify for § 2241 relief since his current request would not be a successive § 2255 motion, but rather an original one. See Montana v. Cross, 829 F.3d 775, 783 (7th Cir. 2016); Cortes-Morales v. Hastings, 827 F.3d 1009, 1014-15 (11th Cir. 2016). King may prefer to bring a § 2241 petition instead of a § 2255 motion, but having not previously filed a § 2255 motion, he does not qualify for § 2241 relief and his claim must proceed under § 2255 in the court that sentenced him.
(N.D. Ill. Case No. 3:20-cv-50043, Doc. 14).[5]
Moreover, after King's petition/motion was transferred to this Court, but before the Court ordered a response from the Government on August 31, 2020 (see Crim. Doc. 47), King filed pro se a letter addressed to the District Judge dated April 22, 2020 (Crim. Doc. 43), requesting “relief” from his sentence on various grounds. (Crim. Doc. 43 at 1). Relevant here, King claimed that he “did not know that [he] was barred from carrying a firearm” and referenced the Rehaif decision. (Id.) By order entered May 11, 2022, the District Judge construed the April 22, 2020 letter as a “Motion for Modification of Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)” and denied it. (See Crim. Doc. 44). Relevant here, that order noted:
Earlier this year, King filed a Motion to Vacate (doc. 41) under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting as his only ground for relief a claim invoking the scienter requirement recognized by the Supreme Court in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). In his § 2255 Motion, King maintains that he did not actually know that he was in the category of persons prohibited from possessing a firearm. King's § 2255 Motion has been referred to Magistrate Judge Nelson for screening and processing.
(Id. at 1).
The District Judge also made clear that his denial of the April 22, 2020 letter was “without prejudice to the Rehaif claim previously raised and currently under consideration in his pending Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” (Id. at 2).
Shortly after that denial, King filed a “Petition for Commutation of Sentence” dated June 3, 2020 (Crim. Doc. 45). Though handwritten, the “Petition for Commutation of Sentence” appeared to follow a form petition, with King writing out various requests for information and then providing answers. Of particular note, King answered “yes” when asked “Have you filed a challenge to your conviction or sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (habeas corpus)?” (Id. at 2). King also wrote: (Id. at 2-3). The District Judge denied the “Petition for Commutation” on June 11, 2022, noting: “To the extent that King's Petition might be liberally construed as a renewed § 3582(c) motion or a new iteration of his pending § 2255 motion to relitigate his Rehaif claim, it is denied for the reasons set forth in the Order (doc. 44) entered on May 11, 2020.” (Crim. Doc. 46).[6]
Section 922(g) makes it unlawful for certain persons-including relevant here, anyone “who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Section 922(g)'s penalty provision provides that any person who “knowingly violates subsection ... (g) ... of section 922 shall be fined as provided in...
To continue reading
Request your trial