United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
JOHN E. TITLEY, Petitioner,
ERIC WILSON, Warden, FMC-Fort Worth, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
O'CONNOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, John E. Titley, a
federal prisoner who was confined at FMC-Fort Worth,
against Eric Wilson, warden of FMC-Fort Worth, Respondent.
After considering the pleadings and relief sought by
Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
October 2013, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. 5:13-cr-00082-D-1,
Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in
possession of a firearm and was sentenced as an armed career
criminal to a 180-month term of imprisonment.
Resp't's App. 14-15, ECF No. 11. Relying on
Mathis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct.
2243 (2016),  Descamps v. United States, 570
U.S. 254 (2013), Begay v. United States, 553 U.S.
137 (2008), and other circuit case law, Petitioner contends
that his sentence is illegal because his prior Oklahoma and
Arkansas state court convictions for possession with intent
to distribute marijuana are not qualifying predicate offenses
for an enhancement as a career offender under the Armed
Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Pet. 13, ECF No. 1. He seeks
resentencing without the ACCA enhancement. Id. at 7.
On June 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion in the
convicting court challenging the ACCA enhancement on other
grounds, which was denied by that court on March 3, 2017.
Resp't's App. 32-36, ECF No. 11. Respondent asserts
that Petitioner's challenge to his sentence is not
cognizable under § 2241 and that the petition should be
dismissed. Resp't's Resp. 4-8, ECF No. 10.
general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to challenge
collaterally the legality of a conviction or sentence must do
so in a § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424,
425-26 (5th Cir. 2005); Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det.
Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). Such claims
may only be raised in a § 2241 petition if the
petitioner establishes that the remedy under § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th
Cir. 2000). The burden of demonstrating the inadequacy of the
§ 2255 remedy rests with the petitioner. Jeffers v.
Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). In order to
meet this burden in this circuit, a petitioner must show that
(1) the claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme
Court decision, (2) the claim was foreclosed by circuit law
at the time when the claim should have been raised in his
trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion, and (3) that
retroactively applicable decision establishes that he may
have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. Garland v.
Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010);
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904
(5th Cir. 2001).
clear that Petitioner cannot meet the three requirements.
First, he could have raised his instant claims in his initial
§ 2255 proceeding, which was pending for more than eight
months after the Supreme Court decided Mathis, the
most recent of the three Supreme Court cases. Second, none of
the Supreme Court cases he cites has been made retroactive to
cases on collateral review. See, e.g., Jenkins v.
Harmon, 736 Fed. App'x 73, 73 (5th Cir. 2018)
(providing in the context of a § 2255(e) savings clause
analysis that Mathis is not retroactively
applicable); In re Jackson, 776 F.3d 292, 296 (5th
Cir. 2015) (noting in the context of an application to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion that
Descamps did not announce that its holding applied
retroactively to cases on collateral review); In re
Bradford, 660 F.2d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting
in the context of a motion for authorization to file a second
or successive § 2255 motion that the holding in
Begay was not made retroactively to cases on
collateral review). Nor are other circuit court cases
controlling where binding Fifth Circuit precedent squarely
holds that a claim challenging a career-offender enhancement
is insufficient to invoke § 2241. See In re
Bradford, 660 F.3d at 230.
Petitioner's challenge to his sentence does not fall
within the savings clause of § 2255(e), it is not
cognizable in a § 2241 petition. The Court is therefore
without jurisdiction to consider the petition. See
Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 385 (5th Cir. 2003).
reasons discussed herein, Petitioner's petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability is
Petitioner is currently confined at