Lomax v. Joyner

• Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky
• Decided: March 14, 2023
• Docket: 7:23-cv-00021
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION at PIKEVILLE

STANLEY LOMAX, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 7: 23‐21‐KKC v. HECTOR JOYNER, Warden, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Respondent. *** *** *** *** Inmate Stanley Lomax 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. Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). In 2002 and 2003, Lomax and eight compatriots committed more than a dozen armed bank robberies in the Chicago suburbs. In May 2004, a 26‐count federal indictment

charged Lomax with one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), one count of Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of brandishing and discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). In April 2005 a jury found Lomax

guilty on all charges. The trial court sentenced Lomax to 188 months imprisonment. United States v. Lomax, No. 1: 04‐CR‐531‐8 (N.D. Ill. 2004). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. United States v. Griffin, 493 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2007). Lomax filed an original and several successive motions seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, without success. Most recently, Lomax sought permission to file a

successive § 2255 motion, cryptically arguing that his Section 924(c) conviction was invalid in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015 (2022). In Taylor, the Supreme Court held that “whatever one might say about

completed Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements clause [of §924(c)].” Id. at 2020. The Seventh Circuit denied the motion, noting that Taylor did not apply because Lomax’s conviction under § 924(c) “was expressly

predicated on the completed Hobbs Act robbery.” In re: Lomax, No. 22‐3123 (7th Cir. Dec. 2, 2022). Lomax’s § 2241 petition reasserts his argument under Taylor. But a prisoner wishing to challenge his conviction pursuant to § 2241 must point to a new decision of

the United States Supreme Court which establishes as a matter of statutory interpretation that his conduct did not violate the statute he was convicted of violating. Taylor v. Owens, 990 F.3d 493, 499 (6th Cir. 2021); Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 307‐08 (6th Cir. 2012).

Lomax cannot make that showing because he was not convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery, the only matter at issue in Taylor, but instead of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and of actual Hobbs Act robbery. Cf. Whitaker v. Hudson, No. 22‐3232‐JWL, 2022 WL 17822515, at *2 (D. Kan. Dec. 6, 2022) (denying 2241 petition invoking

Taylor because “that holding does not directly apply to petitionerʹs conviction, which was 2 based on conspiracy and aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery. The Tenth Circuit has confirmed that Taylor’s holding concerning attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not affect its previous holding that a completed Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under Section 924(c).”) (emphasis in original); Irizarry v. Ramos, No. 5:20-HC-02190-M, 2023 WL 396138, at *11 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 2023) (rejecting § 2241 petition relying on Taylor where “the plea agreement instead reflects that [petitioner] pleaded guilty to substantive Hobbs Act robbery, which satisfies the elements or “use-of-force” clause of § 924(c)(3)(A).”). Lomax therefore fails to satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Lomax’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 2. The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. Entered: March 14, 2023.

Gi 6 6one © ie op xy Na: My UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ne” EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY