Bryson v. United States of America
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Regarding Application for Relief from Illegal Restraint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/28/11. Referred to Judge O'Neill. (Verduzco, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
WILLIAM MACK BRYSON, JR.,
13
Petitioner,
14
v.
15
16
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
17
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11-cv-01818 LJO MJS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING APPLICATION FOR
RELIEF FROM ILLEGAL RESTRAINT
18
19
In this case, petitioner William Mack Bryson, Jr. ("Petitioner") seeks relief from a one
20
hundred dollar assessment in connection with his underlying conviction by the United States
21
District Court, District of South Carolina on May 23, 2002, on several counts involving money
22
laundering. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) However, it is unclear from the application which method
23
Petitioner seeks to use obtain such relief.
24
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
25
Petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of 188 months on May 23, 2002. Since that
26
time, Petitioner has filed several post-conviction petitions with little success. See e.g., Bryson
27
v. U.S., 553 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 2008) (stating that Petitioner has filed sixteen petitions for
28
habeas corpus and other post-conviction actions for relief in the District of South Carolina and
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-1-
1
the Western District of Louisiana.); Bryson v. Keffer, 357 Fed. Appx. 566 (5th Cir. 2008)
2
(Petitioner has been sanctioned based on his filing of numerous frivolous collateral challenges
3
to his sentence.) Petitioner has since been transferred to United States Penitentiary, Atwater,
4
located in the Eastern District of California.
5
Most recently, on November 18, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition with this Court. See
6
Bryson v. USA, Case No. 1:10-cv-02131-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal. 2010). The Court construed the
7
petition as a petition for writ of audita querela and denied relief on September 20, 2011.
8
In the present case, Petitioner filed a document titled “Motion for Reconsideration”.
9
(Mot., ECF No. 14.) In the motion, the Petitioner challenges the designation of the matter as
10
a petition of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by the Clerk of Court. Petitioner states
11
that since he is only challenging a monetary award, a petition for habeas corpus is
12
inappropriate. Instead, Petitioner asserts that he “is following the filing procedure in Kessack
13
and 1:10-cv-02131-LJO-MJS (HC) in order to proceed under the Writ of Audita Querela in a
14
United States District Court.” (Mot. at 2.)
15
II.
ANALYSIS
16
Petitioner is correct that a claim challenging a monetary assessment is not cognizable
17
by way of a petition of habeas corpus. The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by
18
statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that
19
habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he is “in custody in violation of the
20
Constitution.” Further, the Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an
21
attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
22
U.S. 475, 484 (1973).
23
Petitioner’s challenge to a monetary assessment does not challenge the fact or duration
24
of his sentence. This is not an proper claim in a federal habeas action as an order of
25
restitution does not satisfy the custody requirement. United States v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129,
26
1130 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Thiele, 314 F.3d 399, 401 (9th Cir. 2002).
27
Knowing that the claim may not be brought by way of a petition of habeas corpus,
28
Petitioner attempts to pursue his claim by way of a petition for writ of audita querela. The
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-2-
1
petition, if considered a petition for writ of audita querela, still fails.
As described in dismissing Petitioner’s last petition for writ of audita querela, the writ
2
3
is not a viable avenue of relief:
Although Petitioner moves this court for a writ of audita querela, the
arguments Petitioner proffers in favor of his motion are essentially the same
issues Petitioner raised on direct appeal, and in subsequent Section 2255
motions or requests for authorization to file successive Section 2255 motions.
The only significant difference between Petitioner's past motions and the current
petition is Petitioner's extensive reliance and factual comparison to Kessack v.
United States, No. CV-05-1828-TSZ, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7739, 2008 WL
189679 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2008), a district court decision from the Western
District of Washington granting a writ of audita querela and ordering the
re-sentencing of a petitioner that presented similar sentencing issues under
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005). The Court notes that the
Kessack decision has not been followed by any of the courts that have
subsequently considered it, and it is inconsistent with the law of this circuit
holding that a writ of audita querela is not available for a claim that otherwise
falls within the scope of § 2255 relief. See U.S. v. Gamboa, 608 F.3d 492, 49495 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[Petitioner]'s reliance on Kessack is misplaced. It is contrary
to the law of this Circuit”).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Bryson v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79058, *5-6 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2011).
14
Petitioner has not shown why his present claim does not fall within the scope of habeas
15
relief. Petitioner may not circumvent the contours of the habeas framework created by the
16
ADEPA simply by considering his petition as a writ of audita querela. In re Davenport, 147
17
F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1998) (concluding that if the AEDPA foreclosed the use of 28 U.S.C.
18
§§ 2241 and 2255 by federal prisoners, "it would be senseless to suppose that Congress
19
permitted [federal prisoners] to pass through the closed door [by way of the All Writs Act]
20
simply by changing the number 2241 to 1651 on their motions).
21
The Court once again finds that the writ of writ of audita querela is not available to
22
Petitioner. Accordingly, the Court recommends the petition be dismissed with prejudice for
23
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that this civil action be closed.
24
III.
25
26
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Therefore it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's October 31, 2011 petition for writ of
audita querela be denied.
27
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court
28
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-3-
1
304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of
2
California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written
3
objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be
4
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Replies to the
5
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three days if served by
6
mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling
7
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). The parties are advised that failure to file objections
8
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.
9
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated:
ci4d6
November 28, 2011
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-4-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
