Dillon v. Gilley

E.D. Kentucky

Dillon v. Gilley

DecidedNovember 17, 2023

Docket6:23-cv-00201

StatusUnknown

This text of Dillon v. Gilley (Dillon v. Gilley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dillon v. Gilley, (E.D. Ky. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London)

ERIC DILLON, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 6:23-CV-201-CHB ) v. ) ) WARDEN GILLEY, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER Respondent. )

*** *** *** ***

Federal inmate Eric Dillon has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [R. 1]. The Court screens the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Pillow v. Burton, 852 F. App’x 986, 989 (6th Cir. 2021). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit succinctly explained Dillon’s crimes and resulting prosecution: While robbing a convenience store, Eric Dillon gratuitously shot a cashier, who died. He was prosecuted for violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and committing murder with a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). After pleading guilty to these charges, Dillon was sentenced to 510 months’ imprisonment.

United States v. Dillon, 720 F. App’x 310, 310 (7th Cir. 2018) (Mem). In his Section 2241 petition, Dillon asserts that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge his convictions and sentence on double jeopardy grounds. See [R. 1]. He further argues, in apparent reliance upon United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022), that he cannot properly have been found guilty of murder under Section 924(j) because “attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not meet statutory definition of ‘crime of violence.’” [R. 1, pp. 3, 5]. The Court does not reach the merits of these claims because it lacks jurisdiction to entertain them at all. Dillon’s ineffective assistance claim arises under the Sixth Amendment, and such constitutional claims have never been cognizable in a Section 2241 petition. Cf Jones Goetz, 712 F. App’x 722, 727 (10th Cir. 2017); Mallard v. United States, 82 F. App’x 151, 153 (6th Cir. 2003). And the Supreme Court has recently made clear that a habeas petitioner cannot invoke an intervening change in statutory interpretation as a basis for relief in a Section 2241 petition. Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 476 (2023). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Eric Dillon’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 2. This matter is STRICKEN from the docket. This the 17th day of November, 2023.

WA } mae a a COURT JUDGE ee” EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF “Sine” KENTUCKY

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London)

ERIC DILLON, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 6:23-CV-201-CHB ) v. ) ) WARDEN GILLEY, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER Respondent. )

*** *** *** ***

Federal inmate Eric Dillon has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [R. 1]. The Court screens the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Pillow v. Burton, 852 F. App’x 986, 989 (6th Cir. 2021). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit succinctly explained Dillon’s crimes and resulting prosecution: While robbing a convenience store, Eric Dillon gratuitously shot a cashier, who died. He was prosecuted for violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and committing murder with a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). After pleading guilty to these charges, Dillon was sentenced to 510 months’ imprisonment.

United States v. Dillon, 720 F. App’x 310, 310 (7th Cir. 2018) (Mem). In his Section 2241 petition, Dillon asserts that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge his convictions and sentence on double jeopardy grounds. See [R. 1]. He further argues, in apparent reliance upon United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022), that he cannot properly have been found guilty of murder under Section 924(j) because “attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not meet statutory definition of ‘crime of violence.’” [R. 1, pp. 3, 5]. The Court does not reach the merits of these claims because it lacks jurisdiction to entertain them at all. Dillon’s ineffective assistance claim arises under the Sixth Amendment, and such constitutional claims have never been cognizable in a Section 2241 petition. Cf Jones Goetz, 712 F. App’x 722, 727 (10th Cir. 2017); Mallard v. United States, 82 F. App’x 151, 153 (6th Cir. 2003). And the Supreme Court has recently made clear that a habeas petitioner cannot invoke an intervening change in statutory interpretation as a basis for relief in a Section 2241 petition. Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 476 (2023). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Eric Dillon’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 2. This matter is STRICKEN from the docket. This the 17th day of November, 2023.

WA } mae a a COURT JUDGE ee” EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF “Sine” KENTUCKY

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dillon v. Gilley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillon-v-gilley-kyed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack