Hall v. Warden, FCI Williamsburg

1

Timothy Wesley Hall, Petitioner, v. Warden, FCI Williamsburg, Respondent.

No. 8:21-cv-3497-RMG-BM

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

August 14, 2024

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BRISTOW MARCHANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Timothy Wesley Hall (“Petitioner”), a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, brings this action seeking a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Local Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C.; and the Order of reference by the Honorable Richard M. Gergel dated August 12, 2024, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge is authorized to review the Petition for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.

As discussed below, a Report and Recommendation was issued in January 2022 recommending summary dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 21. Thereafter, this action was stayed for more than two years pending the outcome of certain other cases relevant to the claims raised in the Petition. During that stay, two issues relevant to the claims in this action were decided. First, the United States Supreme Court abrogated the Fourth Circuit's savings clause tests as applied in the first Report and Recommendation.^[1]Second, the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that the state court conviction underpinning Petitioner's federal sentencing enhancement is considered a violent felony.^[2]Thus, the Court must engage in a new analysis to apply these now binding precedents to the claims raised in the Petition. For the reasons below, this action is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of the savings clause.^[3]

BACKGROUND

This matter arises from Petitioner's conviction and sentence in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “sentencing court”) at case number 9:14-cr-80060-DPG-1.^[4] imposed following his conviction for possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Procedural History of the Present Action

Petitioner while proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a Petition on the standard form. ECF No. 1. Petitioner also filed a supporting brief and exhibits. ECF Nos. 1-1; 12; 1-3. The Honorable Jacquelyn D. Austin conducted an initial screening of the case and issued a Report and Recommendation on January 28, 2022, recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer or return.^[5]ECF No. 21. Petitioner timely filed objections and also filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance pending a decision by the Florida Supreme Court on issues that he believed could impact his case. ECF Nos. 24; 26.

By Order dated June 22, 2022, the Honorable J. Michelle Childs^[6]granted Petitioner's motion to hold the case in abeyance until the Florida Supreme Court had answered certified questions submitted to it by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Somers v. United States, No 19-11484.^[7] ECF No. 29. In December 2022, Petitioner, still proceeding pro se, filed a first motion to amend/correct the Petition and a second motion to amend/correct the Petition. ECF Nos. 36; 37. Upon consideration of those motions and the matters presented in this action, the Honorable Richard M. Gergel entered an Order dated January 12, 2023, appointing Assistant Federal Public Defender Ann Walsh to represent Petitioner, noting the complexity of the issues raised in the Petition. ECF No. 39. That Order also affirmed the administrative stay in this case “until further order of this Court.” Id. at 1.

Counsel for Petitioner filed a status report dated March 27, 2023 (ECF No. 43), a supplemental brief in response to the Court's January 2023 Order (ECF No. 47), and a supplemental motion to stay dated May 16, 2023 (ECF No. 48). By Order dated May 18, 2023, Judge Gergel again affirmed that “[t]he administrative stay in this matter shall remain in place until further order of this Court,” noting that two cases pending before the United States Supreme Court might impact the issues in the present case.^[8]ECF No. 49.

On August 3, 2024, counsel for Petitioner filed a third supplemental brief requesting that the Court grant the Petition and vacate Petitioner's conviction and sentence. ECF No. 60. Accordingly, on August 12, 2024, Judge Gergel entered an Order lifting the stay in this matter, vacating the previously entered Report and Recommendation, and referring the matter to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge “to address all pending motions.” ECF No. 63.

The Court has carefully reviewed the pro se Petition and supporting documents; the records from Petitioner's underlying criminal action in the sentencing court, including Petitioner's appeals and prior habeas actions; and the briefs and exhibits filed in this case by Petitioner's court- appointed counsel. The Court will briefly summarize Petitioner's underlying conviction and sentence, his appeals and collateral attacks, and the issues presented in the Petition filed in this case.

Petitioner's Conviction, Sentence, and Appeal

On April 3, 2014, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a single-count indictment against Petitioner, charging him with the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See Hall, Doc. 8 at 1. The indictment also charged Petitioner with a sentencing enhancement under § 924(e)(1). Id. A jury convicted Petitioner of the felon-in-possession charge on September 24, 2014. ECF No. 1-1 at 3; see also Hall, Doc. 77. On December 3, 2014, the Honorable Darrin P. Gayles sentenced Petitioner to a term of imprisonment of 262 months followed by 5 years of supervised release. ECF No. 1 at 1; Hall, Doc. 101.

Importantly, the court applied a sentencing enhancement under the ACCA, which requires a court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for the felon-inpossession charge.^[9] See Hall, Doc. 124 at 30, 35-37. Specifically, the sentencing court concluded that Petitioner had at least three prior convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense needed to trigger the ACCA sentencing enhancement, including a conviction for aggravated assault under Florida law and two felony convictions for drug charges. Id.

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from his conviction and sentence, and, on October 14, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. ECF No. 1 at 2; Hall, Docs. 102; 147.

Petitioner's § 2255 Motion

On December 14, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court. ECF No. 1 at 3; Hall, Doc. 148. In his motion, Petitioner argued that the sentencing court erroneously sentenced him because his prior convictions should not have counted as violent felonies under the ACCA. Hall, Doc. 148 at 4. However, the sentencing court denied his motion on February 11, 2016. Id., Doc. 149. In ruling on Petitioner's § 2255 motion, the sentencing court explained as follows:

The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) prepared in advance of sentencing provided for a sentencing range of 210 to 262 months of imprisonment, based, in part, on the fact that the Petitioner qualifies as an “armed career criminal,” as defined under the [ACCA]. This Court determined the Petitioner satisfied the requirements for the armed career criminal sentencing enhancement, based on his current conviction for felon-in-possession and three prior predicate convictions: two separate convictions for possession with intent to sell cocaine in 1988, see PSI at 7 ¶¶ 2425, and one conviction for assault with a firearm in 2010, see id. at 13 ¶ 49. On December 3, 2014, the Court sentenced the Petitioner as an armed career criminal to 262 months' imprisonment....

The Petitioner timely filed the instant Motion on November 27, 2015, arguing that the sentence enhancement the Court imposed under the ACCA is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, __U.S.__, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015)....

[B]ecause the Petitioner was convicted of three valid ACCA predicate offenses, none of which relied on the residual clause of the ACCA, [which was ruled unconstitutional in Johnson,] he was properly classified by this Court as an armed career criminal and sentenced appropriately.

Id., Doc. 149 at 2-3, 5 (emphasis added). Petitioner appealed the sentencing court's denial of his § 2255 motion, but the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution on March 6, 2018. Id.; Doc. 159.

Petitioner's Applications to File a Second or Successive § 2255 Motion

Thereafter Petitioner filed four applications with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking authorization to file motions in the sentencing court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255:

• In re: Timothy Hall, No. 20-11115 (11th Cir.); petition filed on March 19, 2020, and denied on April 6, 2020.

• In re: Timothy Hall, No. 20-11500 (11th Cir.); petition filed on April 20, 2020, and denied on May 6, 2020.

• In re: Timothy Hall, No. 21-13318 (11th Cir.); petition filed on September 24, 2021, and denied on October 7, 2021.

• In re: Timothy Hall, No. 24-11753 (11th Cir.); petition filed on May 29, 2024, and denied on June 11, 2024.

In at least three of those applications, Petitioner made similar arguments to the ones he makes in the present case. Specifically, Petitioner argued that his sentencing...