United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael Goins (“Goins”), who is currently
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution-Satellite Low in Jesup, Georgia, filed a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Doc. 1.) Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 7), to
which Goins did not respond. For the reasons which follow, I
RECOMMEND that the Court GRANT Respondent's Motion,
DISMISS Goins' Section 2241 Petition, and CLOSE this
case. I also RECOMMEND the Court DENY Goins in forma
pauperis status on appeal.
was convicted in this Court, after entry of a guilty plea, of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. The Honorable
Dudley H. Bowen, Jr., sentenced Goins to 151 months'
imprisonment. J., United States v. Goins, 3:14-cr-2
(S.D. Ga. May 25, 2015), ECF No. 345, pp. 1-2. Goins did not
file a direct appeal.
filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In that motion, Goins
contended this Court abused its discretion in determining the
drug quantity for which he was held accountable and his
applicable offense level and by not awarding Goins a
one-point reduction for having entered a plea. Mot.,
United States v. Goins, 3:14-cr-2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 23,
2016), ECF No. 399, pp. 1-10. Goins alleged his counsel was
ineffective for failing to obtain necessary records to show
he did not obstruct justice willfully. (Id. at pp.
10- 11.) This Court dismissed Goins' motion as untimely
filed. R. & R., Order, United States v. Goins,
3:14-cr-2 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 15, 2016 and Jan. 18, 2017), ECF
Nos. 408, 418.
current Petition, Goins contends his sentence was enhanced
illegally because the Government failed to file a proper
notice that it would seek a sentence enhancement. Goins
asserts his counsel was ineffective, which renders his guilty
plea invalid. (Doc. 1, pp. 3, 4.) Goins alleges a fundamental
miscarriage of justice occurred in his criminal proceedings,
he is actually innocent of the crime to which he pled guilty,
and this Court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal
prosecution. (Id. at p. 4.) Goins also alleges he
was denied due process. (Id. at p. 5.)
contends that Goins cannot satisfy his burden of establishing
entitlement to relief pursuant to Section 2255's savings
clause, and his Petition should be dismissed as a result. In
fact, Respondent asserts Goins does not cite to any new,
retroactively applicable decision of the United States
Supreme Court, nor does he claim Eleventh Circuit precedent
foreclosed his contentions on an earlier occasion. Instead,
Respondent states Goins' claims are nothing more than
“a litany of legal nonsense.” (Doc. 7, p. 5.)
Whether Goins can Proceed Pursuant to Section 2241
2241 habeas corpus petitions “‘are generally
reserved for challenges to the execution of a sentence or the
nature of confinement, not the validity of the sentence
itself or the fact of confinement.'” Vieux v.
Warden, 616 F. App'x 891, 896 (11th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738
F.3d 1253, 1288 (11th Cir. 2013) (emphasis omitted)).
Ordinarily, an action in which an individual seeks to
collaterally attack “the validity of a federal sentence
must be brought under § 2255, ” in the district of
conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Turner v. Warden
Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir.
2013). To utilize Section 2241 to attack the validity of a
federal sentence or conviction, a petitioner must show that
the remedy afforded under Section 2255 is “inadequate
or ineffective” to challenge the validity of a
conviction and/or sentence. Taylor v. Warden, FCI
Marianna, 557 F. App'x 911, 913 (11th Cir. 2014).
Section 2255(e)'s “savings clause, ” a
prisoner may file a Section 2241 petition if an otherwise
available remedy under Section 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
Specifically, Section 2255(e) provides:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion
pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it
appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by
motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court
has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy
by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
of his detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (emphasis added). The
above-emphasized portion of Section 2255(e) is referred to as
the “savings clause.”
Bryant, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
articulated the requirements a petitioner must meet in order
to proceed under the savings clause with a Section 2241
petition that raises sentencing claims. 738 F.3d 1253. The
petitioner must establish that: (1) binding circuit precedent
squarely foreclosed the claim “throughout his sentence,
direct appeal, and first § 2255 proceeding”; (2)
“subsequent to his first 2255 proceeding, ” a
Supreme Court decision overturned that circuit precedent; (3)
the rule announced in that Supreme Court decision applies
retroactively on collateral review; (4) as a result of the
new rule, the petitioner's current sentence exceeds the
statutory maximum penalty authorized by Congress; and (5) the
savings clause reaches the petitioner's claim.
Bryant, 738 F.3d at 1274 (synthesizing the savings
clause tests discussed in Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d
1236 (11th Cir. 1999); Gilbert v. United States, 640
F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011); and Williams v. Warden,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, 7 ...