United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
OPINION AND ORDER
R. MEANS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 filed by petitioner Rogerio Matanco, then
housed in FCI-Seagoville in this district. Respondent
Underwood filed a response with an appendix. (Resp. (Doc.
10); App. (Doc. 11-1).) After considering the pleadings and
relief sought by Petitioner and the applicable law, the Court
concludes that the § 2241 petition must be
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND/CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Rogerio Mata was convicted in this Court in cause number
4:11-CR-192-Y on one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). (App.
(doc. 11-1) at 3 7.) On September 19, 2012, this Court imposed
a sentence of 218 months' imprisonment, to run
concurrently with state charges in case numbers 122547D,
1221558D, and 1221549D in Criminal District Court No. 2,
Tarrant County, Texas. (Id. at 4.) Mata did not file
a direct appeal.
2014, Mata filed a motion that the Court construed as a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but when he failed to
respond to a Court order, that § 2255 motion was
dismissed without prejudice. See Mata v. United
States, No.4:14-CV-568-Y (N.D. Tex. Orders entered July
23, 2014, and September 18, 2014). Mata then filed a motion
for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) in
the criminal case, which was granted, and his sentence was
reduced from 218 months to 174 months. See United States
v. Mata, No. 4:11-CR-192-Y (N.D. Tex. April 25, 2016).
Mata subsequently filed other § 2255 motions that were
consolidated and later dismissed with prejudice. See Mata
v. United States, No.4:16-CV-063-Y (consolidated with
No.4:16-CV-476-Y) (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2017). On March 26,
2018, Mata filed a document in the criminal case styled
“Formal Petition under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with
Consideration for Finding of ‘Actual Innocence' of
Sentence all upon Constitutional Claim over
‘Delivery' Enhancement toward Career Status.”
See United States v. Mata, No.4:11-CR-192-Y (doc.
644). By order entered April 25, 2018, the document was filed
in the above styled civil case as a petition seeking relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Id. (doc. 645).) After
the issuance of a notice of deficiency, Mata filed an amended
form petition for relief under § 2241. (Am. Pet. (doc.
petition, Mata asserts that a career-offender enhancement he
received during sentencing in the underlying criminal case is
subject to a vagueness challenge, such that his sentence is
no longer valid as the result of recent case law. (Am. Pet.
(doc. 6) at 5-6.) Mata also claims he is actually innocent of
his sentence as imposed. (Id. at 8.)
motion under § 2255 provides the primary means of
collaterally attacking a federal conviction or sentence.
Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.
2001)(per curiam)(citing Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d
876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000)(per curiam)). “While §
2241 is more typically used to challenge the execution of a
prisoner's sentence, a federal prisoner may bring a
petition under § 2241 to challenge the legality of his
conviction or sentence if he can satisfy the mandates of the
‘savings clause' of § 2255.”
Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir.
2003) (citing Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243
F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir. 2001)). The so-called
“savings clause” provides that
[a]n 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. § 2555(e)(West 2019). Under this
“savings clause, ” the petitioner has the burden
of showing that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830; see also Padilla v.
United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005)(per
wholly fails to show that the § 2255 remedy is either
inadequate or ineffective. Mata cannot rely on § 2241
merely because he is now limited in his ability to seek
relief under § 2255. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218
F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000)(citing Tolliver, 211
F.3d at 878)(holding that neither a prior, unsuccessful
§ 2255 motion, the limitations bar, nor successiveness
renders the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective)).
Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has determined that, before a
petitioner may pursue relief through § 2241 under the
language of the § 2255 savings clause, he must show
(1) his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme
Court decision; (2) the Supreme Court decision establishes
that he was “actually innocent” of the charges
against him because the decision decriminalized the conduct
for which he was convicted; and (3) his claim would have been
foreclosed by existing circuit precedent had he raised it at
trial, on direct appeal, or in his original § 2255
Christopher, 342 F.3d at 382 (citing
Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904 and Jeffers,
253 F.3d at 830).
case, petitioner Mata has not made these showings, and a
review of the grounds asserted in his § 2241 petition
shows that he cannot make them for the reasons stated in the
Respondent's response at 5-8. (Resp. (doc. 10) 5-8.) As
noted therein, Mata's claim challenges the imposition of
his sentence, but he makes no claim that he was actually
convicted of a nonexistent offense. As Mata does not contend
that he is actually innocent of the charge for which he was
convicted based upon a retroactively applicable Supreme Court
decision, and as he otherwise challenges the imposition of
sentence, he is not entitled to relief under § 2241.
Accordingly, the petition seeking such relief must be
dismissed for want of ...