Santiago v. Warden

• Decision Date: 25 March 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 7:20-cv-00648
• Parties: MARCOS SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

MARCOS SANTIAGO, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 7:20-cv-00648

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

March 25, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Elizabeth K. Dillon, United States District Judge

Marcos Santiago, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his continued detention is unconstitutional. Santiago asserts that under Rehaif v. United States, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) are invalid. See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (allowing § 2241 challenge to federal conviction). Respondent has filed a response in opposition, raising a number of arguments as to why Santiago's petition should be dismissed or denied. The first of these is dispositive, and the court does not reach the remainder.

As respondent notes, Santiago already raised the same Rehaif issue in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition before another federal district court, and that ruling is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As a result, his petition before this court is second or successive, and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), the court should not entertain it. For this reason, explained in more detail below, the court will dismiss Santiago's § 2241 petition.

I. BACKGROUND

The prior court where Santiago filed a § 2241 petition summarized the procedural background of his underlying criminal case as follows:

In 2004, petitioner was found guilty by a jury of three violations of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, arising from armed robberies of hotels; one count of conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); three counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of

1

a crime on violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) one count of carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119; and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) Santiago v. United States, No. Civ.A.07-253 RMB 2008 WL 1991627, at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 8, 2008).^[1] According to his presentence investigation report, petitioner's criminal history included a guilty plea in 1999 [to] theft by unlawful taking, criminal trespass - breaking into a structure, in Lancaster County, PA. There, petitioner was sentenced to “time served (4 months and 20 days) to 23 months imprisonment.” In June 2000, petitioner's parole was revoked, and he was resentenced to serve the balance of the maximum time. In October 2000, petitioner was again revoked and resentenced to serve the balance of the maximum time. In 2005, on the robbery case, petitioner was sentenced to a total term of 402 months' imprisonment. Id. at *2. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was rejected. Id. Petitioner then brought a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Northern District of West Virginia. Santiago v. Caokley, No. 18-CV-110, 2018 WL 5569429 (N.D. W.Va. Oct. 4, 2018). There, the court dismissed petitioner's petition without prejudice since the issues presented in the petition were the same as those in petitioner's request to file a second § 2255, which at the time was still pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Id. at *7. The Third Circuit then granted petitioner's petition for a second or successive § 2255, and that motion is pending.^[2] Petitioner now brings a § 2241 habeas corpus petition under Rehaif.

Santiago v. Christopher Rivers, Warden, No. 3:19-cv-50273, ECF No. 40, at 1-2 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2020).

The Northern District of Illinois addressed Santiago's § 2241 petition, concluding that his motion must be denied because he could not show that he was “actually innocent” as required to obtain relief under § 2241 in the Seventh Circuit. Id. at 3. In particular, the court reasoned that in light of his...