Griffith v. United States of America, No. 3:2014cv00047 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 05/11/2015. Copy mailed to Griffith on 5/11/2015(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Griffith v. United States of America Doc. 14 I I IE R\ MAY I I 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, VA Richmond Division JOSEPH GRIFFITH, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:14CV47 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Joseph Griffith, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 22411 petition ("§ 2241 Petition," ECF No. 5) . Report the On February 12, 2015, the Magistrate and Recommendation recommending action for want of Judge issued a that the Court dismiss jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the action will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1 That statute provides, in pertinent part: (c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless— (1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States trial before some court thereof; or is committed for or (2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; (3) He is Constitution States 28 U.S.C. or in or custody laws or in violation treaties of the of the United .... § 2241(c) (l)-(3). Dockets.Justia.com I. The Magistrate BACKGROUND Judge made the following findings recommendations: A. Procedural History and Summary of Griffith's Claims In the United States Central District of Illinois, to distributing 2252(a)(1), and imprisonment." 714, child was District Court pornography, sentenced to United States v. 715 (7th Cir. 2003) In his § 2241 Petition, for the ''Griffith pleaded guilty 18 U.S.C. § 262 months' Griffith, Griffith 344 F.3d challenges the sentence imposed by the District Court for the Central District of Illinois. (§ 2241 Pet. 3.) Specifically, Griffith contends that: GROUND ONE: Unconstitutional applied. -Enhancements for the enhancements computer use is duplicitous. Statute wording "including by computer" includes computer usage by that wording. Base offense level inclusive. -Enhancement for sexually abusing children was unconstitutionally applied. The charge was not pled to nor jury convicted. It was a separate offense "element" and was not judicially discretionary. GROUND TWO: Career enhancement was unconstitutional -Following every possible\questionable enhancement possible was the absolute limit. Careering out a defendant based on emotion is neither legal nor constitutional. Judge Mihm sacrificed obligatory "neutral arbiter" status and illegally implemented the career enhancement to a defendant who did not qualify for such. (Id. at set 7-8 (capitalization corrected).) forth below, Petition be the Court RECOMMENDS For reasons that the § DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 2241 and B. Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Compared to Petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 "'provides the primary means of collateral attack'" on the imposition of a federal conviction and sentence and must be filed with the sentencing court. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cox v. Warden, Fed. Pet. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) ) . A federal inmate may not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 unless he or she demonstrates that the remedy afforded by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 "is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).2 "For example, attacks on the execution of a sentence are properly raised in a § 2241 petition." In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996); Hanahan v. Luther, 693 F.2d 629, 632 n.l (7th Cir. 1982)). Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has emphasized that "the remedy afforded by § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual has been unable to obtain relief under that provision or because an individual procedurally barred from filing a § 2255 motion." is Id. (citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit has stressed that may proceed under § 2241 to challenge "in only very limited circumstances." an inmate his conviction United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The "controlling test," id., in the Fourth Circuit is as follows: [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; 2 "This 'inadequate and ineffective' exception is known as the 'savings clause' to [the] limitations imposed by § 2255." Wilson v. Wilson, No. I:llcv645 (TSE/TCB), 2012 WL 1245671, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000)). (2) subsequent to the prisoner's direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law. In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit formulated this test to provide a remedy for the "fundamental defect presented by a situation in which an individual is incarcerated for conduct that is not through no fault of his [or her] own, no source of redress." Id. at criminal but, [he or she] 333 n.3 has (emphasis added). C. Analysis of Griffith's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition re Griffith fails to Jones. See In re satisfy the second prong of In Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 334 (4th Cir. 2000) . Specifically, Griffith fails to demonstrate that "subsequent to [his] direct appeal and [his] first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which [he] was convicted is (emphasis added). deemed stands convicted, still not The criminal. to distributing See be conduct 18 criminal." of child which pornography, U.S.C. § Id. Griffith is 2252(a)(1). Moreover, "Fourth Circuit precedent has . extended the reach of the savings clause . . not to those petitioners challenging only their sentence." Poole, 531 F.3d at 267 n.7 (citing In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 333-34). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Griffith's WANT 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition be DISMISSED FOR OF JURISDICTION. (Report and Recommendation entered Feb. original).) 12, 2015 (alteration in II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION "The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court." 1993) Estrada v. Witkowski, (citing Mathews v. 816 Weber, F. Supp. 423 U.S. 408, 261, 410 270-71 (D.S.C. (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which filing objection of district is objections judge to made." to focus a 28 U.S.C. magistrate's attention on 474 U.S. 140, 147 recommendation, 28 U.S.C. (1985). enables the dispute." and Thomas v. When reviewing the magistrate's further evidence." § 636(b)(1). GRIFFFITH'S Griffith contends that he 2241, "The issues—factual this Court "may also receive III. § 636(b)(1). report those legal—that are at the heart of the parties' Arn, § because enhancement he imposed is upon OBJECTIONS is entitled to proceed by way of actually him. (See, innocent e.g., of Objs. the 7, sentencing ECF No. 13 ("Petitioner strongly believes that a defendant can be guilty of an underlying enhancements.") See Darden v. offense and be innocent (capitalization corrected).) Stephens, 426 F. App'x 173, of sentencing Griffith is wrong. 174 (4th Cir. 2011) (concluding career petitioner's offender claim designation of innocence failed to with provide a respect to basis for proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241); see also Wright v. Wilson, 568 F. App'x court's under 218, conclusion 28 Objections U.S.C. will § 218 that 2255, (4th Cir. attack on not 28 be overruled. will be accepted and adopted. 2014) a (affirming sentence U.S.C. § The Report must 2241.) be district brought Griffith's and Recommendation The action will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: »y ^ ,-* 11%G4[ 0/*2$^ Richmond, Virginia Robert E. Payne /,/ /?// Senior United States District Judge
]]>
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.
