Tate v. United States of America et al, No. 7:2019cv00290 - Document 8 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 6/25/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
c eRK's OFFICE U.s.DISX O UR! AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT FO R TH E W E STER N D IST RIC T O F W RG IN IA R O A N O K E D IVISION M Y M O N D TAT E, JUN 25 2219 ' JULK .DUD BY: / ! D Pu7# c R C ASE N O .7:19CV 00290 Petitioner, M EM ORANDUM OPINION UNII'ED STATES OF AM ERICA,C K , By: H on.Glen E.Conrad Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge R espondents. Raymond Tate,afederalinm ateproceeding proK ,hasfiledapetition forawritofhabeas corpuspursuantto28U.S.C.j2241,aslcingforreleasefrom detentionbecauselimited1aw library accessinprisoninterferedwith hisabilitytocollaterally attack hisfederalconviction andsentence. Afterm view oftherecord,thecourtwillsumm arily dism issthepetition. 1. In Novem ber2008,Tate wasindicted in the United StatesDistrictCourtforthe Eastem Distrid of Tçnnessee in Chattanooga for distribution of 50 grnm s or m ore of cocaine base Clcrack').Tatev.United States,No.I:O8-CR-II8-HSM -W BC,2015 WL 5089139,at*1(E.D. Term.Aug.27,.2015). After Tate developed contlicts with three,successive court-appointed attorneys,he waived hisrightto counseland elected to representhim selfwith standby counsel. J. d.. aat*2. A superseding indictmentretunzed in Jtme2009recharged Tatewith thedistribution offenleand addedtllreeadditionalchargesarising from allegationsthatTatehad attempted tolcill aconfdentialinformantby shooting herin thefaceto preventherfrom communicating with law Tate v. United States of America et al Doc. 8 enforcementortestifyingagainsthim.ld.InNovember2009,Tatewasconvictedbyajtlryona11 charges. Id.at*6. H e is serving a sentence oflife plus ten years in prison. 1d.at *7. H is direct appealwasunsuccessful.J#.sat*8. Dockets.Justia.com RK InFebruary2013,Tatefledhistirstmotiontmder28U.S.C.j2255,whichthetrialcourt dism issed aswithoutmerit.Id.at*20.Tateappealed,seeking acertitk ateofappealability onthe meritsofhisconstitutionalclaimsinthej2255.Pet.2,ECFNo.1.On M arch28,2016,hefiled a second j2255 motion,raising the snme constitutionalissuesaspresented in hisfirstj2255 motion.In addition,TateGlcom plained aboutprison oftk ialsnotfurnishing adequate law libraries oradequate assistance 9om personstrained in the 1aw in violation ofLewisv.Casev,518 U .S. 343(1996).55 Id.OnApril4,2016,thedistrictcourttransferred Tate'ssecond j2255motionto theUnited StatesCourtofAppealsforthe Sixth Circuitasa second or successive motion tmder 28U.S.C.jj2244(b)and 2255(h). On April8,2016,the Sixth Circuitdenied acertificate of appealability regarding the districtcourt'sdenialofhisinitialj2255motion,No.15-6066,and laterdeniedTatecertifcationtotilethesecond j2255motion. On M arch 30,2016,whileTate'sappealsregardingllisj2255motionswerependingin theSixth Circuit,prison ox cialsatafederalprison in Louisianaplacedhim in the SpecialHousing . ' Uzlit(:iSHU''),whereheremainedtmtilJtme15,2016.W hileintheSI-1U,Tatecouldaccessa1aw ; library com puter,atmost,only.onceperweek foraboutan hotzrand had no accessto otherlegal materialsorpersonswith lçgaltraining.OnApril18,2016,undercertain Sixth Circuitrules,Tate challenged theApril8,2016 orderdenying him a certificate ofappealability in No.15-6066. On June8,2016,theCourtdeniedthatm otion,findingthattheApril8,2016,orderwasnotreviewable uùderthe cited nlles. On June 15,2016,oflicialstransferred Tate,and aftera period in transitwith no access to legalmaterials,heanivedattheUnited StatesPenitentiaryin LeeCotmty,VirginiaCGUSP Lee''), on June29,2016. AtUSP Lee,Tate had accessto law library computersand typewriters,butno help from personstrained in the law . 2 OnJuly 14,2016,Tatesledamotion to reinstatehisj2255appeal,No.15-6066,inthe Sixth Circuit,complaining abouthis lack of access to legalm aterials in the federalpdsons in Louisl ïana and Virginia. TheCourtinformed him thatNo.15-6066 wasclosed by fnalorderand would notbereinstated. Tate m issed the deadlineto file a petition fora m itofcertiorariin the United StatesSuprem eCourtregarding No.15-6066. In July2017,Tatefiledanotherj2255motion,assignedNo.1t-5833intheSixth Circuit, raising the lack ofaccessclaim sincluded in the presentcase. In January 2018,the Sixth Circuit enteredanorderinNo.17-5833,denyingTateleavetofileasecondorsuccessivej2255motion. The Courtstated, Tate's FirstAmendment claim is notthe proper subjectof a j2255 motion. Althoughaj2255motionisapost-convictionremedy,itcannotbeusedtopursue everypost-convictionclaim and isinstead limitedto claim sconcem ing thevalidity ofaconviction orsentence. Tate'sFirstAmendmentclaim concem shisaccessto legalmaterialsin relation tollisj2255motion and,therefore,hasno bearingon thevalidity ofhisconviction orsentence. Pet.at4,ECF N o.1. Tatefledhisj2241petitioninthiscottrtinApril2019,arguingthatinadequateaccessto legalm aterialsin prison prevented him from perfecting hispetition fora m itofcertiorariin the Supreme Courtregrding his j2255 appealin July 2016,in violation pfhis Firstand Fifth Amendmentrights.Asrelief,Tateassertsthattmderj22554e)and j2241,thiscourtshouldorder llisrelease9om confinem ent. 11. A prisonermust,generally,useamotionunderj2255to collaterallyattackthelegalityof hisdetentiontmderafederalconvictionandsentence.28U.S.C.j2255(a);Davisv.UzlitedStates, 417 U.S.333,343 (1974).A districtcourthasnojurisdictiontoentertainapetitionforam itof habeascopuslmderj2241challengingthevalidityofan inmate'sdetentionunderafederalcourt 3 judgmentunlessaj2255motionistûinadequateorineffectivetotestthelegalityofEthatinmate'sj detention.''28U.S.C.j2255/)('çthesavingsclause');United Statesv.R eeler,886 F.3d 415, 423(kth Cir.2018).TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourthCircuithasconcluded thatj2255isinadequateand ineffectivetotestthelegality ofaconvictionwhen: (1)atthettme ofconviction settled law ofthiscircuitorthe Supreme Court established thelegality oftheconviction;(2)subsequenttothepdsoner'sdirect appealandfirstj2255motion,thesubstantivelaw changedsuch thattheconduct ofwhich the prisonerwasconvicted isdeemed notto be criminal;and (3)the prisonercannotsatisfythegatekeepingprovisionsofj2255becausethenew rule isnotoneofconstitutionallaw. In reJones,226F.3d328,333-34(4thCir.2000). Tate cnnnot satisfy this standard,because he fails to identify any intervening change in substantive 1aw that decriminalized the acts for which he was convicted. W ithout question, distriéution of50 g' ramsormoreofcocainebaseand attemptingto killacov dentialirlformant arestillviolationsoffederalcrim inallaw . Anevenmorestringentstandardappliestoj2241challengestothelegalityofaninmate's sentenceasimposed. To bring such claims,theprisonermustshow that: (1) atthe time ofsentencing,settled 1aw ofthis circuitorthe Supreme Court established the legality ofthe sentence;(2) subsequentto the prisoner's direct appealandfirstj2255motion,theaforementionedsettledsubstantive1aw changed and wasdeemed to apply retroactively on collateralreview;(3)the prisoneris unabletomeetthegatekeepingprovisionsofj225541$(2)forsecondorsuccessive motions;and(4)duetothisretroactivechange,thesentencenow presentsan error suflk iently graveto bedeemed afundnm entaldefect. W heeler,886F.3dat429.Tatefailstoshow thathissentencenow constitutesûGan en'orsufficiently graveto be deemed a fundnm entaldefect''in lightofpartictllarchangesin substantive law that occurred afterhis initialj2255 motion and have also been fotmd to apply retroactively in a collateralproceeding.Id. Forthestatedreasons,Tate cnnnotuse j22554$ toraisehisctr ent claimsunderj2241,pursuanttoInreJonesorW heeler. 4 M oreover,asthe Sixth Circuithasalready held,Pet.at4,ECF N o.1,Tate'sclaim sthat prison policiesorofficialshaveinterferedwithhisrightto aceessthecouz'tsarenothabeascorpus claim s.Habeascorpuspetitionsarereservedforattackson the factordtlration ofthepetitioner's cov nement. SeePreiserv.Rodricuez,411U.S.475,500 (1973). Challengesto conditionsor restrictionsthattheinmateencounterswllileinprison (such aslimitedaccessto legalmaterials) fallwelloutsidethecoreofhabeascorpussubjectmatterandmustberaised,ifatall,in acivil action fordnmagesorinjunctiverelieftmderfederalorstatelam l SeeNelson v.Campbell,541 U.S.637,643(2004).BecauseTate'spetitionchallengesonlyconditionsofhisconfinementthat do nottmderm ine the constimtionalvalidity ofthe factorthe duration ofhisconfinem enttmder hisfederalcriminalsentence,thecourtwillsummarily dismissllispetitionwithoutprejudicefor lack o'fjmisdiction.Anappropriateorderwillissuethisday. TheClerk isdirectedto send copiesofthism emorandllm opinion and accompanyingorder to petitioner. ENTER:This> dayofJtme,2019. - . t. SeniorUzlited StatesDistrictJudge l TheSupremeCourt'sdecision inBivensv.Six Unknown NamedAcentsoftheFed.Bureau ofNarcotics, 403U. . S.388,395-97 (1971),authorizeda cause ofactionfordamagesagainstafederaloftkerforviolationsof constitutionalrights.ItappearsthatTate'sclaim inthisaction- alleginginadequateaccesstolegalm aterialsdeprived him ofhisrighttopursueatimelypetitionforawritofcertiorarifrom thedenialofhisinitialj2255motionin2016istimebarred.SeeBlochv.Exec.OftkeofthePresident,164 F.Supp.3d841,860n.27(E.D.Va.2016)(noting thatthestattlteoflimitationsforBivensactionsisthepersonalinjurystamteoflimitationsforthefonzm inwhichthe claim arises,andinVirginia,thatstamtorylimitistwoyears)(citingVa.CodeAnn.j8.01Q43(A)).Therefore,the courtdeclinestoconstrueTate'spleading asaBivenscomplaint. 5
]]>
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.
