United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Quincy D. Hubbard, Petitioner,
Warden L. LaRiva, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the July 28, 2017 Report and
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge
Becky R. Thorson. (Dkt. 3.) Petitioner Quincy D. Hubbard
filed a timely objection to the R&R. Respondent Warden L.
LaRiva filed a response that does not substantively address
the R&R or Hubbard's objection. Nonetheless, LaRiva
asserts that the R&R should be adopted in full.
Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which
an objection is made and “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); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); LR
72.2(b)(3). Those portions of an R&R to which no
objections are made are reviewed for clear error.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 1983 advisory committee
note; Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir.
1996) (per curiam).
R&R observes that a federal prisoner generally must
challenge a conviction or sentence through a Section 2255
motion in the jurisdiction in which the prisoner was
sentenced rather than through a Section 2241 habeas petition
filed in the jurisdiction of incarceration. See Hill v.
Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003). To
collaterally challenge a conviction or sentence under Section
2241, a prisoner must demonstrate that the remedy provided by
Section 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality” of the detention. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e). The R&R correctly applies Eighth Circuit
law, which provides that “in order to establish [that]
a remedy is inadequate or ineffective under § 2255,
there must be more than a procedural barrier” and, at a
minimum, the prisoner must show that there was “no
earlier procedural opportunity to present [the
prisoner's] claims.” Abdullah v. Hedrick,
392 F.3d 957, 959, 963 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Hubbard's petition is based on Mathis
v. United States, in which the Supreme Court of the
United States recognized that it was applying an
“essential rule” that had been set forth
“more than a quarter century ago.” 136 S.Ct.
2243, 2251 (2016). For this reason, the R&R concludes
that Hubbard had multiple earlier opportunities to present
the arguments he made in his Section 2241 petition. On this
basis, the R&R recommends dismissing Hubbard's
Section 2241 petition for failure to establish that Section
2255 “is inadequate or ineffective” under the
Eighth Circuit's precedent.
does not challenge the R&R's application of Section
2255 under Eighth Circuit precedent, and the R&R's
analysis is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Instead, Hubbard argues that his habeas petition should be
governed by decisions of the Seventh Circuit because he was
convicted and sentenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. Hubbard has not
established, and this Court's research has not
identified, a legal basis for this Court to apply Seventh
Circuit precedent in lieu of Eighth Circuit precedent in
these circumstances. Moreover, an application of Seventh
Circuit precedent would not lead to a different decision
here. See, e.g., Holt v. United States, 843
F.3d 720, 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (concluding that the holding in
Mathis is neither a “new rule” nor
retroactive); Montana v. Cross, 829 F.3d 775, 783
(7th Cir. 2016) (stating that a Section 2241 petitioner must
establish that a “new rule applies retroactively to
cases on collateral review and could not have been invoked in
[petitioner's] earlier proceeding”). Hubbard's
objection is overruled.
one week after filing his objection, Hubbard filed a document
titled “motion to supplement jurisdictional
statement.” Although styled as a motion, this document
appears to be a supplemental objection to the R&R, and
the Court construes it as such. But nothing in Hubbard's
supplemental objection substantively addresses the
R&R's conclusion that Hubbard has not demonstrated
that the remedy provided by Section 2255 is “inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, ”
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), which Hubbard must demonstrate to
challenge his sentence under Section 2241. For this reason,
Hubbard's supplemental objection is overruled.
on the foregoing analysis, the R&R, and all the files,
records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
Petitioner Quincy D. Hubbard's objections to the July 28,
2017 R&R, (Dkts. 4, 5), are OVERRULED;
July 28, 2017 R&R, (Dkt. 3), is ADOPTED;
Petitioner Quincy D. Hubbard's petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus, (Dkt. 1), is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
Petitioner Quincy D. Hubbard's application to proceed in
district court without prepaying ...