Mouscardy v. White

OPINION

ROBERT B. KUGLER, United States District Judge.

Petitioner is a federal prisoner who is currently incarcerated at FCI Fairton, in Fairton, New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, (ECF No. 16), and Petitioner filed an Opposition, (ECF No. 18). Thereafter, the Court terminated Respondent's motion and ordered supplemental briefing to address the merits of the case. (ECF No. 20.) Respondent filed a supplemental brief, (ECF No. 28), and Petitioner filed a Reply, (ECF No. 31). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Respondent's motion and dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from Petitioner's criminal case in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The First Circuit set forth the background of this case on direct appeal:

The facts, as supported by the record, are as follows. On March 11, 2010, at approximately 12:30 p.m., an individual called 911 to report an assault at the corner of Belmont and Ferry Streets on the boundary of Everett and Malden Massachusetts. The call was routed to the Everett Police Department. The caller reported that he saw a “man beating up his girlfriend or his wife, ” adding that the man was “giving it to her pretty good.” The caller also provided descriptions of the man and the woman

2

The 911 dispatcher relayed the information to police officers, describing the incident as a “possible domestic assault in progress” on the corner of Belmont and Ferry Streets. Everett Police Officer Matthew Cunningham and Sergeant Robert Zaino were the first to respond. When the officers arrived, they found a man and a woman who fit the descriptions given by the 911 caller. The man was later determined to be Reginald Mouscardy. Because the officers believed that the alleged assault may have occurred on the Malden side of Belmont Street, Officer Cunningham had Everett dispatch contact Malden Police and request that they respond to the scene

Due to the nature of the 911 call, the Everett officers separated Mouscardy and the woman in order to see whether they would provide consistent accounts of the alleged incident. Officer Cunningham took Mouscardy around the corner to the Malden side of Belmont Street, where Mouscardy offered that nothing had happened and that there was no problem Officer Cunningham did not question Mouscardy at this point.

After a brief period-Officer Cunningham testified that it was two to three minutes after his initial contact with Mouscardy and the woman-Malden Police Officer Robert Selfridge arrived on the scene. Officer Selfridge first spoke with Sergeant Zaino and the woman, who gave her name as Shannon Agnew. Agnew, who appeared upset, told Officer Selfridge that nothing had happened and that there had been no assault. She indicated that she knew Mouscardy and that she had been in a relationship with him for about three months, but she did not provide his name to the officers. Officer Selfridge testified that his interaction with Sergeant Zaino and Agnew lasted about thirty-five to forty seconds.

Officer Selfridge then went around the corner to interview Mouscardy. Mouscardy had his back against the wall of a building, and Officer Cunningham was to Mouscardy's left. Officer Selfridge first asked Officer Cunningham if Mouscardy had identified himself; Officer Cunningham informed him that Mouscardy refused to give his name. Officer Selfridge then asked Mouscardy for his name or any form of identification numerous times, but Mouscardy refused to comply, simply repeating that nothing had happened.

Mouscardy had grown visibly “agitated and fidgety” by this point, and he had begun “eye-balling” the area. Keeping his right hand in his right jacket pocket, Mouscardy began to circle away from the wall of the building until he was almost standing on the street. Mouscardy's actions and demeanor made Officer Selfridge uncomfortable, and he asked Officer Cunningham if Mouscardy had been patted down. After Officer Cunningham told Officer Selfridge

3

that he had not performed a pat-down, Officer Selfridge informed Mouscardy that he was going to search him for weapons, and asked him to take his right hand out of his jacket pocket. Mouscardy did not comply. Officer Selfridge initiated the pat-down. When his left hand reached Mouscardy's right jacket pocket, Mouscardy removed his right hand from the pocket and struck Officer Selfridge's left hand with enough force to throw it above Officer Selfridge's shoulder. Officer Selfridge then attempted to return his left hand to Mouscardy's right jacket pocket, and Mouscardy attempted to slap it away again. Officer Selfridge managed to grab the pocket, but Mouscardy then turned away and started to flee. Although the stitching tore slightly, the contents of the pocket remained enclosed and therefore unknown to the officers.

Officers Cunningham and Selfridge gave chase as Mouscardy fled on foot. Officer Selfridge estimated that he was within ten to twelve feet of Mouscardy throughout the pursuit, while Officer Cunningham followed slightly behind. As Mouscardy ran up the driveway of a residence on Rich Street in Everett, Officer Cunningham ran to the right side of the house in an apparent attempt to block Mouscardy's path of escape while Officer Selfridge remained on Mouscardy's heels.

During the chase, Officer Selfridge noticed that Mouscardy was struggling to remove something from his right pocket. Mouscardy managed to successfully remove the object, which he then transferred from his right hand to his left hand. Officer Selfridge observed that the object was a small handgun. In order to alert Officer Cunningham, Officer Selfridge screamed “he's got a gun” as he continued his pursuit. Mouscardy disappeared behind the Rich Street residence, and Officer Selfridge, now knowing that Mouscardy was armed, drew his weapon and maneuvered carefully around the corner of the house, where he observed Mouscardy attempting to scale a chain-link fence with the pistol still in hand. Officer Cunningham joined Officer Selfridge in the back yard of the residence.

After several commands from police to drop the gun, Mouscardy finally placed the pistol on top of a green plastic container and walked toward the officers. A struggle ensued when the officers attempted to handcuff Mouscardy pursuant to an arrest, but he was eventually restrained near the basement door of the residence. Officers retrieved the gun, which was determined to be a .32 caliber Beretta. Mouscardy's true identity was discovered when he was booked at the police station.

United States v. Mouscardy, 722 F.3d 68, 70-72 (1st Cir. 2013).

4

“On July 26, 2011, a jury convicted Mouscardy of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).” United States v. Mouscardy, 59 F.Supp.3d 289, 291 (D. Mass. 2014). At that time, the statute only required the Government to prove that Petitioner possessed a firearm and that he had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, not that he knew that he had such a conviction at the time he possessed the firearm. See United States v. Nasir, 982 F.3d 144, 161 (3d Cir. 2020). For trial, Petitioner had stipulated that he had a conviction for a qualifying felony, but he did not stipulate that he knew he had a felony conviction at the time that he possessed the firearm in March of 2010. (ECF No. 28-3, at 81.) “Nor did the Government attempt to prove that Petitioner knew that he had been convicted of a crime punishable by a term exceeding one year at the time that he violated § 922(g), as such knowledge was not an element of the crime under existing precedent.” (ECF No. 28, at 6-7.)

Ultimately, the district court sentenced Petitioner to twenty years in prison as an armed career criminal, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Id. Petitioner appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed. Mouscardy, 722 F.3d at 70. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, correct, or set aside sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and his sentencing court denied that motion. Mouscardy, 59 F.Supp.3d at 291.

Petitioner filed the instant § 2241 Petition in February of 2020. In his Petition, Petitioner contends that his conviction and sentence are no longer valid in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, (ECF No. 16), and Petitioner filed an Opposition, (ECF No. 18). The Court terminated Respondent's motion and ordered supplemental briefing to address the merits of the case. (ECF No. 20.) Respondent filed a supplemental brief, (ECF No. 28), and Petitioner filed a Reply, (ECF No. 31).

5

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A petition must “specify all the grounds for relief” and set forth “facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c) (amended Dec. 1, 2004), applicable to § 2241 petitions through Habeas Rule 1(b). A court addressing a petition for writ of habeas corpus “shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled there.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

Thus, “[f]ederal courts . . . [may] dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856....