Henderson v. Werlick

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: March 30, 2023
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01005-SMY
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SETH EUGENE HENDERSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 19-cv-1005-SMY ) T.G. WERLICH, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER YANDLE, District Judge:

Petitioner Seth Henderson filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence of 180 months imprisonment imposed in 2013 for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). (Doc. 1). He asserts that following Rehaif v. United States, ___U.S.___, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) and Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016), his conviction and sentence should be vacated. Respondent moves to dismiss the Petition on the basis that Henderson has not filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and thus, cannot satisfy “savings clause” requirements set forth in In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998). (Doc. 13). For the following reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Background On April 2, 2013, Henderson was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Doc. 13-2). The 2013 indictment alleged that “petitioner previously was ‘convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year’” and that Henderson was an Armed Career Criminal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Id. On June 26, 2013, Henderson plead guilty to the one-count Indictment, felon in possession of a firearm (Doc. 13-4,5). On October 23, 2013, Henderson was sentenced to 180 months in federal prison, a five-year term of supervised release to follow his incarceration and was ordered to pay fines and special assessments totaling $100 (Doc. 13-1). On September 16, 2019, Henderson filed a § 2241 petition (Doc. 1). He asserts that pursuant to Rehaif, his conviction is invalid and must be vacated because the Government did not allege or otherwise prove that Henderson was aware of his status as a felon at the time he possessed the firearm. Id. Henderson also alleges that pursuant to Mathis, his previous prior crime does not qualify as a predicate offense for the purposes of sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), rendering his 180-month federal sentence illegal and entitling him for resentencing. Id.

Henderson did not appeal his conviction or sentence, nor did he previously challenge his conviction or sentence in a § 2255 motion (Doc. 13). Discussion A prisoner who has been convicted in federal court is generally limited to challenging his conviction and sentence to bringing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the court which sentenced him. See Kramer v. Olson, 347 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 2003). Under very limited circumstances, a prisoner may employ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his conviction and sentence. More specifically, § 2255(e) contains a “savings clause” which authorizes a federal prisoner to file a § 2241 petition where the remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [his] detention.” Id. “A procedure for postconviction relief can fairly be termed inadequate when it is so configured as to deny a convicted defendant any opportunity for judicial rectification of so fundamental a defect in [his] conviction as having been imprisoned for a nonexistent offense.” In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 1998). A petitioner must satisfy three conditions to trigger the savings clause on this basis: (1) he must show that he relies on a new statutory interpretation case rather than a constitutional case; (2) he must show that he relies on a decision that he could not have invoked in his first § 2255 motion and that applies retroactively; and (3) he must demonstrate that there has been a “fundamental defect” in his conviction or sentence that is grave enough to be deemed a miscarriage of justice. Brown v. Caraway, 719 F.3d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2012). Henderson’s Petition fails to satisfy the second Davenport condition because he did not file a prerequisite § 2255 motion. Henderson relies on two Supreme Court cases in his Petition, Rehaif and Mathis. Rehaif is a case of statutory interpretation that retroactively applies to cases on collateral review and can be invoked in a first § 2255 motion if permission is timely sought and obtained. As Mathis is a case of constitutional interpretation, a claim based on that decision could also be raised in a § 2255 motion if permission is timely sought and obtained. Moreover, because a § 2255 remedy remains available to him, Henderson cannot show that relief under § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective. For these reasons, the savings clause does not apply in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Conclusion Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 13) is GRANTED; Henderson’s Petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 30, 2023 Aout Gell STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge