Watford v. Wilson, No. 3:2017cv00604 - Document 21 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 6/21/18. (Copy mailed to Petitioner).(jtho, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Watford v. Wilson Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D t FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division 2 I 2018 KENNETH WATFORD, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:17CV604 V. ERIC WILSON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Kenneth submitted a Watford, 28 U.S.C. (ECF Nos. 6, 9-1.)^ a federal § 2241 inmate Petition. proceeding ("§ 2241 pro se, Petition"). For the reasons set forth below, the § 2241 Petition will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.^ I. In PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF WATFORD'S CLAIMS the United States District Court for the District Maryland ("Sentencing Court"), Watford was convicted of: of one- ^ The Court utilizes the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system to Watford's submissions. Watford submitted his § 2241 (See ECF Nos. 6, 9-1.) Petition in The Court notes that two different parts. ^ Watford is currently incarcerated in Terre Haute Federal Correctional Institution, in Terre Haute, Indiana. However, when Watford filed the § 2241 Petition with this Court, he was housed in Petersburg Federal Correctional Complex, in Petersburg, Virginia. (See ECF No. 9, at 2.) Although § 2241 petitions are appropriately filed in the district where a prisoner is confined, see § 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997), the Court will not transfer the action due to the apparent lack of jurisdiction under both § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Dockets.Justia.com count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud; three-counts of v/ire fraud; one-count aggravated theft of identity while on attempted theft; pretrial wire two-counts release; fraud; of two-counts aggravated one-count of of identity access device fraud while on pretrial release; one-count of attempted access device fraud while on pretrial attempted access device fraud. release; and, one-count See United States v. Watford, 692 F. App'x 108, 109-10 (4th Cir. 2017}. The Sentencing Court imposed a 135-month term of imprisonment for all counts. id. at 112. for the sentence. of See On May 19, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit affirmed Watford's conviction and Id. In his § 2241 Petition, Watford challenges his convictions by the Sentencing Court. (See ECF No. 9-1, at 2-6.) Specifically, Watford raises the following claims for relief in his § 2241 Petition:^ Claim One: "Failure to appear. On Nov[ember] 19, 2013, the judge ruled that I failed to appear at a Nov[ember] 15, 2013 bail revocation hearing. I submitted proof to this Court . . . that I did not fail to appear." Claim Tv;o: (ECF No. 9-1, at 2.) "Unauthorized from state transfer court to of jurisdiction federal court. The lawyer I had at the time allowed [my case] to be moved without my consent." (Id. at 4.) ^ The Court corrects the spelling, punctuation, capitalization in the quotations from Watford's submissions. and Claim Three: "False Criminal Criminal Complaint. Complaint convictions, statement had The two felonies, a linked me that conspiracy, false was determined false to at a trial through the FBI agent['s] own testimony that she lied. . . Claim Four: "Indictment and based (Id. at 4.) on fraud, misrepresentation That Mr. of Watford misleading the was truth. convicted in Baltimore City Circuit Court to 10 years for selling cocaine. False. That Mr. Watford was arrested in [North Carolina] in 1989 for driving without a license, and was convicted of that offense in March of 2009. False. That Mr. Watford gave a gentleman a website to print-out a fraudulent insurance policy that he used to purchase vehicles in other people['s] names. False. Was proven by the FBI Agent['s] own testimony that she lied." (Id. at 5.) Claim Five: "Conspiracy aggravated to commit identity wire fraud and theft. It was proven in trial that I didn't provide an insurance policy or identity theft names to anyone in furtherance of a crime. It was proven at trial that the lead FBI investigator lied about Mr. Watford's involvement to commit fraud." Claim Six: a conspiracy "Loss amount. There (was] no loss amount reported. There could have been no intended loss because it was proven at trial involved fraud." Claim Seven: in (Id. at 6.) that search Government cellphone a Watford conspiracy was not to commit cellphone. The (Id.) "Illegal warrant Mr. with did to and of not have search Mr. refused to a search Watford's turn the cellphone over to Mr. Watford, in fear that it would prove Mr. Watford's innocence." II. (Id.) 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 such motion must be filed with the sentencing court. Cir. 2000) See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th (quoting Cox v. Warden, 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990)). under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Fed. Pet. Ctr., 911 F.2d A federal inmate may not proceed unless he 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).'' "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 because '' an is not rendered individual has inadequate been unable or to ineffective obtain under "This 'inadequate and ineffective' exception is known as the 'savings clause' to [the] limitations imposed Wilson relief merely V. Wilson, No. I:llcv645 (TSE/TCB), 2012 by § 2255." WL 1245671, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000)). that provision or because an individual is procedurally barred from filing a § 2255 motion." In re Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194 n.5 (citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit has stressed that an inmate may proceed under § 2241 to challenge his conviction "in only very limited circumstances." Cir. 2008) omitted). United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 269 (4th (citation omitted) (internal quotation marlcs 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) 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, added).' The 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis Fourth Circuit formulated this test to provide a remedy for the "fundamental defect presented by a situation in which an individual The Court notes is incarcerated for conduct that is not that in United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d Fourth Circuit recognized that In re Jones may, in some instances. allow an inmate to challenge serious sentencing errors in a § 2241 petition. Id. at 427-30. Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit affirmed that "[t]here is no doubt that Jones is still good law in this circuit," and as applied to Watford, requires a substantive change in the law that would make his conduct no longer criminal. Id. at 427. 415 (4th Cir. 2018), the criminal but, redress." through no fault of his own, has no source Id. at 333 n.3 (emphasis added). III. ANALYSIS OF WATFORD'S 28 U.S.C. § 2241 PETITION Watford fails to satisfy the second prong of In See id. at 334. to motion, substantive the [he] (emphasis was re Jones. Specifically, Watford fails to demonstrate that "subsequent which of [his] direct law convicted added). is The appeal changed deemed and [his] such that to of conduct not be which first the § 2255 conduct criminal." Watford of Id. stands convicted, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, attempted wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, aggravated identity theft while on pretrial release, access device fraud while on pretrial release, attempted release, and, criminal. of which access attempted device access fraud device while fraud on are pretrial all still Because Watford fails to demonstrate that the conduct he was convicted has been decriminalized, he cannot proceed by § 2241. IV. Watford months. Bail. he filed a number of motions in the last two First, Watford has filed a Motion for Leave to File for (ECF transfer where has OUTSTANDING MOTIONS No. this is 16.) action currently Second, to be Watford transferred incarcerated. to (ECF asks the No. this Court district 17.) to court Finally, Watford asks this Court to have Watford transferred back Virginia. ( ECF procedural vehicle seeks. 18. ) No. that Accordingly, Watford authorizes fails the Watford's motions to identify actions that (ECF Nos. 16, to the Watford 1 7, 18) will be denied. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the § 2241 Petition (ECF Nos. 7, 9) will be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. Watford's outstanding motions (ECF Nos. 16, 1 7, 18) will be denied. The Clerk is directed to sen d a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Watford. /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior nited States District Judge Richmon d, Virginia Date: June L, 2018 7
]]>
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.
