Michael W. Johnson v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I, No. 15-11808 (11th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-11808 Date Filed: 03/30/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-11808 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cv-00042-WTH-PRL MICHAEL W. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP I, Respondent - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (March 30, 2017) Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Michael Johnson appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We apply our recent decision in McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., No. 12-14989 (11th Cir. Mar. 14, 2017) (en banc), to his Case: 15-11808 Date Filed: 03/30/2017 Page: 2 of 3 appeal. Because Johnson had an opportunity to challenge his sentence enhancement in a motion to vacate, we affirm the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Johnson is a federal prisoner sentenced in the Western District of Missouri. Johnson challenged the enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act in his first motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied his motion on the merits and the Eighth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. During the course of his collateral proceedings, the Supreme Court decided Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), and Johnson was transferred to a facility in the Middle District of Florida. Johnson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, against the warden of his prison. He argued that in the light of Begay, the motion to vacate was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The district court dismissed Johnson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus because Johnson did not meet the requirements of Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2013). This Court recently overruled its precedent in Bryant and held that “a change in caselaw does not make a motion to vacate a prisoner’s sentence ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’” McCarthan, slip op. at 2 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)). Because Johnson had “an opportunity to challenge his 2 Case: 15-11808 Date Filed: 03/30/2017 Page: 3 of 3 sentence enhancement,” and in fact did so, “his remedy was not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence, regardless of any later change in caselaw.” Id. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Johnson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
