Nettles v. Jett

• Decision Date: 10 March 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION: 14-00389-CG-B
• Parties: REGINALD NETTLES, Petitioner, v. B.R. JETT, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

REGINALD NETTLES, Petitioner, v. B.R. JETT, et al., Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION: 14-00389-CG-B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

March 10, 2016

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Reginald Nettles, who is currently housed at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota ("FMC Rochester"), has filed a petition and amended petitions seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against B. R. Jett ("Jett"), Warden of FMC Rochester, and the United States of America.¹ (Docs. 1, 2, 4). Also before the Court is a response filed on behalf of the Respondents (Doc. 17) and a reply by Nettles. (Doc. 18).

The petition, as amended, is now ripe for adjudication and has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R) and Rule 8 of theRules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The undersigned has conducted a careful review of the record and finds that no evidentiary hearing is required to resolve this case. Kelley v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 377 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2004). Upon consideration, and for the reasons stated herein, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Nettles' habeas petition, as amended (Doc. 4), be construed as a motion for discharge under 18 U.S.C. § 4247, that it be DENIED and that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the Court request the preparation of an annual report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(e)(1)(B) from the Director of the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota where Nettles is currently housed.

I. Background.

In September 2012, Nettles was indicted for assaulting a postal employee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), (b). United States v. Nettles, Crim. No. 12-00220-CG-B (Crim. Doc. at 11)². Nettles entered a plea of not guilty, andfollowing a competency evaluation and hearing, he was deemed competent to stand trial (Crim. Doc. at 21). Following a stipulated bench trial, the Court found Nettles not guilty only by reason of insanity, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(b), the Court ordered that Nettles be examined for a determination of whether or not he was suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. (Crim. Doc. at 33). On November 6, 2013, following receipt of the report of examination from the Federal Medical Center at Butner, North Carolina (Crim. Doc. 37), the Court held a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(c), and found that Nettles failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property to another due to the present mental disease or defect. (Crim. Doc. at 40). Thus, the Court ordered Nettles committed to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4243(e). (Id.) As noted supra, Nettles remains confined at FMC Rochester and has petitioned this Court for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

II. Habeas Petition.

A review of Nettles' petition as amended reveals that it is disjointed, and difficult to decipher. As best the undersigned can determine, Nettles is not challenging the conditions of his confinement, but the fact of his confinement and, he is seeking his immediate release from custody on conditions. Nettles also asserts that his counsel failed to appeal the commitment order which resulted in his confinement, and that his counsel was ineffective because Nettles was denied a speedy trial, denied a trial by jury, and had his testimony used against him in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Nettles further asserts that all the laws of the United States are null and void. (Doc. 4).

Respondent argues that Nettles' petition constitutes a "collateral attack on his conviction or sentence" and as a result, it should be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not § 2241, and that the time for filing a § 2255 petition has long since expired. (Doc. 17 at 3). Respondent further asserts that Nettles' claims do not fall within the "savings clause" of § 2255(e); thus, he should not be allowed to circumvent the provisions of §2255 by improperly seeing relief under § 2241.

III. Analysis.

a. Proper Classification of Petition

A federal prisoner seeking to collaterally attack his sentence must, in most instances, pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. McCarthan v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 811 F. 3d 1237 (llth Cir. 2016). Section 2255 grants federal prisoners a cause of action to challenge their sentences as unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful and delineates the procedure for adjudicating these actions. Id. In addition, the so-called "savings clause" contained in § 2255 allows a federal court to entertain a federal prisoner's § 2241 habeas petition in the limited circumstances where the prisoner demonstrates that the remedy in § 2255 "is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)³; see also Williams v. Warden, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11thCir. 2013); Wattleton v. Beeler, 186 F. App'x 852, 852-53 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)) (citing Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 1999)).

In this action, Nettles is not in custody serving a sentence, but he is instead confined to FMC Rochester based upon the Court's findings of not guilty only by reason of insanity, and that his release would create a substantial risk of harm to others due to his mental defect or disease. Accordingly, given the absence of a sentence, Nettles cannot proceed under § 2255⁴. See United States v. Tucker, 153 F. App'x 173, 175 (4th Cir. 2005)(per curiam) (dismissing appeal of denial of § 2255 where individual had been found not guilty by reason of insanity); Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 2004)(petitioner "was found not guilty by reason of insanity and therefore is not eligible for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255."); United States v. Budell, 187 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1999)("Because [petitioner] was acquitted [by reason ofinsanity], he is not a prisoner in custody under sentence. . ." and section 2255 is inapplicable to him.); Knox v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119099, 2008 WL 2168871 at *4 (D.S.C. May 2, 2008)(noting that petitioner could not file a habeas petition under section 2255 because he was not a "prisoner in custody under sentence.").

As noted, Section 2255's "savings clause" permits a petition under § 2241—which is "generally reserved for challenges to execution of a sentence or the nature of confinement, not the validity of the sentence itself or the fact of confinement," Bryant v. Warden, 738 F.3d 1253, 1288 (11th Cir. 2013)—if a petitioner establishes that the remedy provided by § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." § 2255(e); see also Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir.2003). A person committed after having been found not guilty only by reason of insanity is not precluded from establishing by writ of habeas corpus the illegality of his detention. 18 U.S.C. § 4247(g); Wattleton v. Beeler, 186 Fed. Appx. 852 (11th Cir. 2006); Payden v. Jett, 610 Fed. Appx. 594 (8^th Cir. 2015)( "we disagree with the conclusion that Payen was precluded from bringing a habeas claim--for which the warden would be the proper respondent--challenging his continued confinement and seeking a hearing on that basis,see 18 U.S.C. § 4247(g) (nothing contained in, inter alia, § 4246 precludes person who is committed under section from establishing by writ of habeas corpus illegality of his detention)"); Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F. 3d 644 (8^th Cir. 2004)(because the petitioner was contending that he met the standards for release under 18 U.S.C. § 4243, his claim was cognizable under "2241(c)(3) which "authorizes the habeas court to determine whether the petitioner "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."".

A petitioner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) must file his petition in the district where he is incarcerated, and must name the warden as the respondent⁵. Fernandez v.United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991)("[s]ection 2241 petitions may be brought only in the district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated.") ; see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446-47, 124 S. Ct. 2711, 159 L. Ed. 2d 513 (2004) ("The proviso that district courts may issue the writ only 'within their respective jurisdictions' forms an important corollary to the immediate custodian rule in challenges to present physical custody under § 2241. Together they compose a simple rule that has been consistently applied in the lower courts, including in the context of military detentions: Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement."). Although Nettles was tried in the Southern District of Alabama, and it was this Court that committed him to the custody of the Attorney General, he is committed to the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. Thus, venue properly lies in the United States Court for the District of Minnesota, where Nettles is currently confined, as opposed to this District.

b. Transfer of Petition.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a complaint is filed laying venue in the wrong district, a district court may dismiss or, in the interests of justice, may transfer that action to any district in which it could have been brought. In applying § 1406(a), "the decision whether to transfer a case is left to the sound discretion of the district court and is reviewable only for an abuse of that discretion." Roofing & Sheet Metal Services, Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982, 985 (...