United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
OWEN ODDMAN A/K/A Charles M. Llewlyn, Petitioner,
WARDEN DEBORAH HICKEY,  Respondent.
ILISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE
before the Court are Petitioner Owen Oddman's
("Oddman") Motion for Relief From Judgment Pursuant
to Rule 60(b) and his Motion to Hold his Rule 60(b) Motion in
Abeyance. Dkt. Nos. 32, 35. Respondent filed a Response in
Opposition to Oddman's Rule 60(b) Motion. Dkt. No. 33.
For the reasons which follow, the Court DENIES Oddman's
Rule 60(b) Motion and DISMISSES as moot his Motion to Hold
his Rule 60(b) Motion in Abeyance.
(or "Odman") was convicted in the Western District
of North Carolina of conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He was sentenced to 360
months' imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed his sentence and conviction. United States v.
Odman, 47 F.App'x 221 (4th Cir. 2002). Oddman then
filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his
conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the
Western District of North Carolina denied. The Fourth Circuit
then denied Oddman's application for certificate of
appealability. Dkt. No. 5, p. 2.
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court. In his Petition, Oddman
asserted authorities in the Western District of North
Carolina violated Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations ("VCCR") by failing to advise
him of his rights under the VCCR and because he
"requested the assistance of his home consulate in open
court and the United States fail [sic] to make said request
known without delay." Dkt. No. 4, p. 2. Oddman contended
his trial "was rife with prejudicial and injurious
acts." Id. at p. 1. The United States
Magistrate Judge issued a Report wherein he recommended
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be granted because Oddman
failed to satisfy the "savings clause" of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, as set forth in Wofford v. Scott, 177
F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999). Dkt. No. 8. The Court adopted
this recommendation as the opinion of the Court, over
Oddman's Objections, by Order dated March 3, 2010. Dkt.
No. 11. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
Oddman's appeal for want of prosecution. Dkt. No. 25.
April 29, 2011, Oddman filed a Motion to Reopen Case. Dkt.
No. 27. The Court denied his Motion on July 8, 2011. Dkt. No.
30. Still undeterred, Oddman has now filed his present Motion
for Relief From Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b).
Motion, Oddman contends he is attacking a defect in his
federal habeas proceedings. To wit, Plaintiff avers that this
Court's previous denial of his Section 2241 Petition is
and was erroneous. Dkt. No. 32, pp. 4-5. Oddman alleges that
treaty-based claims are cognizable under Section 2241 and 28
U.S.C. § 2254, not 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, Oddman
contends he can bring this Rule 60(b)(6) Motion.
asserts the saving clause test announced in McCarthan v.
Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d
1076 (11th Cir. 2017), does not provide any basis for relief
under Section 2241 because treaty-based claims are cognizable
pursuant to Section 2255. Dkt. No. 33, pp. 3-4. In response,
Oddman states Respondent failed to acknowledge that
McCarthan identified as an example of when the
remedy afforded by Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective
is when a person is sentenced by multiple courts. Dkt. No.
34, p. 1.
60(b) provides that a Court may relieve a party from
judgment, order, or proceeding in a limited number of
circumstances including: (1) mistake or neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; or
(5) the judgment has been satisfied. Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b)(1)-(5). Additionally, the catchall provision of Rule
60(b) authorizes relief from a judgment, order, or proceeding
based on "any other reason that justifies relief"
raised "within a reasonable time . . . after the entry
of the judgment or order." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). Relief
under Rule 60(b)(6) is an "extraordinary remedy which
may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances." Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722
F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984)(citation omitted); see
also Arthur v. Thomas. 739 F.3d 611, 628 (11th Cir.
filed his Motion on April 20, 2017, which is nearly six (6)
years after the Court denied his previous Rule 60(b) Motion
and more than seven (7) years after the Court dismissed
Oddman's Section 2241 Petition and entered final
judgment. Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 30, 32. Oddman has not filed the
instant Motion "within a reasonable time" after the
Court's entry of dismissal. Even if he had, however,
Oddman fails to show any extraordinary circumstances that
reveal he is entitled to the "extraordinary remedy"
Rule 60(b)(6) provides.
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) (internal punctuation
and citation 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". Taylor v.
Warden, FCI Marianna, 557 F.App'x 911, 913 (11th
Cir. 2014); Turner, 709 F.3d at 1333 (noting the
petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the remedy
under Section 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention). A motion to vacate covers only
challenges to the validity of a sentence, but the saving
clause and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus cover
challenges to the execution of a sentence. Cf. Antonelli
v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1351 n.l (11th
Cir. 2008) ("It is well-settled that a § 2255
motion to vacate is a separate and distinct remedy from
habeas corpus proper. ... A prisoner in custody pursuant to a
federal court judgment may proceed under § 2241 only
when he raises claims outside the scope of § 2255(a),
that is, claims concerning execution of his sentence.")
(internal citations omitted)); United States v.
Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir. 1980) ("[The
prisoner's] appropriate remedy is under § 2255, not
28 U.S.C. § 2241, since the alleged errors occurred at
or prior to sentencing.").
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 ...