Rice v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 02 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:20-cv-01258-JAM-CKD P,2:20-cv-01258-JAM-CKD P |
| Parties | ROYLAND RICE, Petitioner, v. PAUL THOMPSON, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this judicial district, where he is confined. ECF No. 1. On July 29, 2020, the court ordered respondent to file an answer to the petition or a motion to dismiss within 60 days. ECF No. 5. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the § 2241 petition on September 28, 2020. ECF No. 8. Petitioner filed an opposition and the time for respondent's reply has expired. ECF No. 9. For the reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends granting respondent's motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) on February 28, 2013 in the Northern District of California. See ECF No. 62 in United States of America v.
////
//// Rice, Case No. 4:12-cr-00818-PJH-1 (N.D. Cal.).1 He was sentenced to serve 168 months in custody followed by 3 years of supervised release. See Rice II at ECF No. 92. This conviction also violated petitioner's supervised release in a prior case resulting in an additional term of 18 months to be served consecutively. See United States v. Rice, Case No. 4:01-cr-40123 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013).2
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed petitioner's conviction on June 15, 2015. See United States v. Rice, 607 Fed. Appx. 748 (9th Cir. 2015). The United States Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari on November 19, 2015. See Rice II at ECF No. 128.
Petitioner filed his first motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on May 17, 2016. See Rice II at ECF No. 133. In this counseled § 2255 motion, petitioner asserted that he was improperly sentenced as a career offender due to prior convictions that did not qualify as crimes of violence in light of the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). Id. On March 20, 2017, the sentencing court denied petitioner's § 2255 motion. See Rice II at ECF No. (citing Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017)). Petitioner appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit which denied his request for a certificate of appealability on April 23, 2018. See Rice II at ECF No. 159.
While his appeal was pending, petitioner filed a pro se motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure arguing once again that he did not qualify as a career offender. See Rice II at ECF No. 151. The sentencing court dismissed this motion without prejudice on December 15, 2017 because it was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. See Rice II at ECF No. 152. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of that decision was denied by the sentencing court on March 9, 2018. See Rice II at ECF No. 156.
On October 4, 2018 petitioner filed a pro se motion to amend his prior § 2255 motion in an additional attempt to challenge his sentence as a career offender. See Rice II at ECF No. 160. The sentencing court once again dismissed the motion without prejudice as an unauthorizedsecond or successive § 2255 motion. See Rice II at ECF No. 161.
On August 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal denied petitioner's application for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion challenging his sentence in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). See Rice II at ECF No. 170.
One day later, the sentencing court rejected petitioner's "motion for consideration of Amendment 798 and for correction of a sentence pursuant to § 3582" as yet another unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. See Rice II at ECF No. 171. Petitioner appealed the sentencing court's denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal which denied a certificate of appealability on November 8, 2019. See Rice II at ECF Nos. 173, 176.
On April 12, 2020, petitioner filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. See Rice II at ECF No. 177. The sentencing court appointed counsel to represent petitioner "for the limited purpose of assessing [his] eligibility for [a] reduction of sentence... under the First Step Act." See Rice II at ECF No. 178. Petitioner's motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 was denied by the sentencing court on June 19, 2020. See Rice II at ECF No. 187. Petitioner appealed the sentencing court's denial. See Rice II at ECF Nos. 189-192. On May 21, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's order denying his compassionate release motion with instructions that it be dismissed without prejudice. See Rice II at ECF No. 199.
Petitioner filed another § 2255 motion in the sentencing court on December 21, 2020 which is still pending. See Rice II at ECF No. 193. This pro se § 2255 motion raises the same sentencing challenge to petitioner's status as a career offender. Id. On May 13, 2021, petitioner filed a request to withdraw that § 2255 motion in order to file a motion for reconsideration of the sentencing court's denial of his motion for compassionate release. See Rice II at ECF No. 198.
In the present § 2241 application, petitioner argues that he should be permitted to challenge his sentence in the jurisdiction of his confinement pursuant to the escape hatch exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) because he is actually innocent of the career offender sentencing enhancements. ECF No. 1. "Petitioner asserts that he did not have an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting such claim of 'actual innocence' (1) where it was foreclosed byexisting precedent at the time of his direct appeal and § 2255 petition[; and,] (2) [p]etitioner's claim is not based on the Constitution, but on decisions in Johnson/Dimaya/Davis interpretations of several statutes, which are retroactive decisions." ECF No. 1 at 5. By way of relief, petitioner asks this court to remove the career offender designation from his sentence thereby resulting in a sentencing range of 51-63 months which he has already served. ECF No. 1 at 8.
On February 10, 2021, petitioner filed a motion to amend his § 2241 petition in an effort to challenge the manner in which his federal stimulus funds were deducted from his prisoner trust account. ECF No. 13. Before respondent could address the pending motion to amend, petitioner filed a new § 2241 petition raising this same challenge. See Rice v. Thompson, Case No. 2:21-cv-00649-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.). Because petitioner commenced a new action, his motion to amend is now moot. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends denying his motion to amend. To the extent that respondent requests additional time to respond to the motion to amend, this request will be denied as unnecessary. ECF No. 26.
In his § 2241 application, petitioner states that "his sentence is no longer just" because his career offender sentence is unconstitutionally vague based on the recent decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) ( 28 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague). ECF No. 1 at 6-7.
Respondent moves to dismiss on the grounds that petitioner's challenge to his sentence cannot be raised in a § 2241 petition because he does not meet any of the "escape hatch" exceptions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). ECF No. 8. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner's sentencing challenge. First, respondent contends that petitioner merely challenges the legal sufficiency of the career offender sentencing enhancements which does not equate to a claim of factual innocence. ECF No. 8 at 3-4 (citing Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008)). A challenge to the application of the advisory sentencing guidelines does not qualify for the escape hatch exception of 28 U.S.C. 2255(e). Id. at 4. Lastly, respondent points out that petitioner has had numerous unobstructed procedural shots at presenting his sentencing challenge on direct appeal as well as via several § 2255 motions. Id. Simply because the sentencing courtand the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have rejected petitioner's claims on the merits does not mean that he was denied the opportunity to challenge his sentence. Id. For all these reasons, respondent argues that the motion to dismiss the § 2241 petition should be granted based on lack of jurisdiction.
In his opposition to the motion filed on April 28, 2021, petitioner characterizes his actual innocence challenge to his sentence as a new claim that was not available on direct appeal or in his prior § 2255 motions. ECF No. 24. However, petitioner concedes that Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), on which he relies to argue that his prior conviction should not have been used to enhance his sentence, was decided while his direct appeal was still pending. ECF No. 24 at 27. In order to avoid the bar on second or successive § 2255 motions, petitioner argues that he is not challenging his conviction or sentence, but is challenging the manner of his confinement. ECF No. 24 at 7. Petitioner contends that he is similarly situated to the § 2241 petitioner in Allen v. Ives, 950 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2020), and therefore should be allowed to challenge his career offender status via the present § 2241 petition.
Federal inmates have two avenues for pursuing habeas corpus relief. First, a challenge to a federal prisoner's conviction or sentence can be raised via a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 motions are filed in the judicial district where the conviction occurred. Alternatively, a federal inmate challenging the manner, location, or conditions involved in the execution of their sentence, may file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861,...
To continue reading
Request your trial