United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Timothy Bernard Clark, Pro Se Petitioner.
Voss and Ann M. Bildtsen, United States Attorney’s
Office, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Petitioner’s Objection [Doc. No. 6] to Magistrate Judge
David T. Schultz’s July 25, 2017 Report and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 5] (“R&R”). The
Magistrate Judge recommended that: (1) Petitioner’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1]
(“Petition”) be dismissed with prejudice; (2)
Petitioner’s Motion Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §
2241 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence [Doc. No. 4]
(“Motion Pursuant to § 2241”) be denied; (3)
Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. No. 2] be denied; and (4)
Petitioner’s Motion for appointment of counsel [Doc.
No. 3] be denied. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
overrules Petitioner’s Objection and adopts the R&R
in its entirety.
R&R documents the relevant factual and procedural
background of this case, and the Court incorporates it by
reference. Briefly stated, Petitioner Timothy Clark
(“Petitioner”) is currently imprisoned at the
Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. (Petition, at
2.) In 2007, he was convicted in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin of one count of
possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and one
count of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to
distribute. (Id.) At sentencing, the trial court
determined that Petitioner was a career offender under §
4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
(Id. at 3.) Petitioner was sentenced to a 360-month
term of imprisonment. (Id. at 2.)
14, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Motion Pursuant to § 2241 in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,
seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence
based, in part, on Mathis v. United States, 136
S.Ct. 2243 (2016). (See Petition, at 3; see
also Motion Pursuant to § 2241.) Petitioner also
requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
moved for appointment of counsel.
25, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
Petitioner’s Motions be denied and that his Petition be
dismissed with prejudice. (R&R, at 5.) On August 9, 2017,
Petitioner filed his Objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R. (Objection under LR 72.2(b)(1) [Doc.
No. 6] (“Objection”).)
Standard of Review
“may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). The district
court will review de novo those portions of the
R&R to which an objection is made, and it “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D.
Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).
federal prisoner generally must challenge his sentence
through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and he may not
employ the habeas remedy of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 unless he
demonstrates that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see Abdullah v. Hedrick,
392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004). This § 2255(e)
savings clause enabling § 2241 relief is
“narrowly[ ]circumscribed.” U.S. ex rel.
Perez v. Warden, FMC Rochester, 286 F.3d 1059, 1061 (8th
Cir. 2002). To establish that a remedy is inadequate or
ineffective, “there must be more than a procedural
barrier to bringing a § 2255 petition.”
Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 959. This means that a federal
prisoner cannot raise an issue in a § 2241 motion that
could have been addressed in the § 2255 motion filed in
the sentencing ...