Jackson v. United States

THOMAS JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:20-CV-1860 SPM

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

August 30, 2021

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court upon review of self-represented plaintiff Thomas Jackson's complaint under 28 U.S.C § 1915A. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

Legal Standard on Initial Review

Plaintiff is a convicted and sentenced federal prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas. Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the United States of America, the Honorable Ronnie L. White, Assistant Public Defender Felicia Jones and Public Defender Cathy DiTraglia. Although plaintiff has paid the full filing fee in this matter, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to review a civil complaint “in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); see also Lewis v. Estes, No. 00-1304, 2000 WL 1673382, at *1 (8th Cir. Nov. 8, 2000) (citing Rowe v Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 781 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A applies to all prisoners, no matter their fee status, who bring suit against a governmental entity, officer, or employee)).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to review and dismiss a complaint filed by a prisoner in a civil action if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.

When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented person, the Court accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and it liberally construes the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits the claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even self-represented plaintiffs are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (refusing to supply additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the self-represented plaintiff).

Procedural Background

Defendant Felicia Jones represented plaintiff in his criminal action in 2004. See United States v. Jones, No. 4:04CR20 HEA (E.D.Mo). On March 29, 2004, Jackson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On June 18, 2004, he was sentenced as a career offender to a 216-month term of imprisonment. Jackson did not appeal the judgment. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Jones failed to file a notice of appeal in his criminal case, and as a result, he brought a motion to vacate his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, based on ineffective assistance of counsel, ^[1] which was granted, and he was resentenced to the same term of imprisonment in an amended judgment on March 26, 2008.^[2]

After the amended judgment was entered in plaintiff's criminal case, he brought two pro se motions for relief. Plaintiff first filed a motion to reduce his sentence in his criminal action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, asserting that he was entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 706 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels for certain cocaine base offenses. On July 6, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's motion on the grounds that Amendment 706 does not apply to defendants who were sentenced under the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Jones, No. 4:04CR20 HEA (E.D.Mo).

Plaintiff filed a second motion to vacate challenging his career offender designation on July 6, 2010. See Jackson v. United States, No. 4:10-CV-1201 CEJ (E.D.Mo 2010). The Court denied his motion to vacate on July 20, 2010 as an unauthorized successive petition.

On August 22, 2011, Assistant Public Defender Felicia Jones entered her appearance in plaintiff's criminal case on behalf of plaintiff, “replacing all counsel from [her] office that have previously appeared for [plaintiff].” See United States v. Jones, No. 4:04CR20 HEA (E.D.Mo).

On November 5, 2012, plaintiff filed a pro se request in the District Court to file a successive petition based on an intervening decision of the Court which he maintained negated his prior conviction for distribution of crack as a controlled substance offense. See Jackson v. United States, No. 4:05-CV-212 CEJ (E.D. Mo). The District Court transferred this request to the Court of Appeals, who remanded the case with the instruction that it was not a successive habeas corpus petition, because he had been resentenced as a result of his initial § 2255 petition. Jackson v. United States, No. 12-3810 (8th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff's petition was denied on June 27, 2016, in Jackson v. United States, No. 4:05-CV-212 CEJ (E.D. Mo).

On June 27, 2016, Assistant Public Defender Felicia Jones filed a motion to vacate plaintiff's sentence brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on behalf of plaintiff, pursuant to the Supreme Court case of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The matter was opened as a civil matter. See Jackson v. United States, No. 4:16-CV-1032 CEJ (E.D.Mo). Plaintiff's motion to stay the matter, filed by Felicia Jones, was denied on July 14, 2017.

On January 15, 2019, plaintiff filed a pro se motion for relief under the First Step Act.^[3] See United States v. Jones, No. 4:04CR20 HEA (E.D.Mo). Assistant Public Defender Felicia Jones once again entered her appearance on behalf of plaintiff on January 22, 2019, and plaintiff filed a second pro se motion for relief under the First Step Act on February 1, 2019.

On February 7, 2019, the United States Probation Office filed a report indicating that plaintiff appeared to be substantively eligible for Retroactive Application of the Fair Sentencing Act. On April 25, 2019, Felicia Jones filed a motion to reduce plaintiff's sentence under the First Step Act.

On May 22, 2019, Felicia Jones filed a motion to withdraw as attorney for plaintiff. In the motion to withdraw, Ms. Jones stated, “an attorney from counsel's office was informed of information that creates a conflict of interest for the Federal Public Defenders' Office to continue to represent Mr. Jackson.”

On May 29, 2019, the Court denied both plaintiff's request for relief under the First Step Act, as well as Ms. Jones' request for relief submitted on plaintiff's behalf. The Court found that plaintiff's “voluminous conduct violations while incarcerated demonstrated he still presents a risk to public safety and, in its discretion, denied his request for a sentence reduction.” On this same date, the Court granted Ms. Jones' request to withdraw from representing plaintiff.

In October of 2020, plaintiff sought compassionate release. Once again, Felicia Jones sought withdrawal from representation of plaintiff, as well as appointment of counsel for plaintiff outside the Federal Public Defenders' Office. Attorney Talmage Newton, IV was assigned as counsel for plaintiff. On February 23, 2021, plaintiff's motion for compassionate release was denied. See United States v. Jones, No. 4:04CR20 HEA (E.D.Mo).

The Complaint

On December 18, 2020, plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 28, 2020, the Court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a court form and either pay the $400 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis no later than January 18, 2021. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 19, 2021, and he paid the full filing fee in this action on January 25 2021.^[4]

Plaintiff brings this action against the following defendants: United States of America, the Honorable Ronnie L. White, Assistant Public Defender Felicia Jones and Public Defender Cathy DiTraglia. He brings this action against defendants in their individual and official capacities.

Plaintiff asserts that when he was represented by defendant Felicia Jones in his criminal action in 2004, they didn't see “eye to eye” on anything. He states that Ms Jones failed to file a notice of appeal of his criminal action, and as a result, he was able to receive an amended judgment in his criminal case after filing a motion to vacate on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure of counsel to file a notice of appeal. Plaintiff states that he should not have been assigned a lawyer in the Federal Public Defenders'...