Sease v. United States

ARTHUR SEASE, IV, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

CIVIL No. 2:20-cv-02873-JPM-tmp

Criminal No. 2:06-cr-20304-JPM-1

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

December 28, 2022

ORDER DENYING & DISMISSING MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

JON P MCCALLA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Before the Court is the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“§ 2255 Motion”) filed by Movant Arthur Sease, IV (“Sease”), Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) register number 21062-076, an inmate at FCI Bennettsville in Bennettsville, South Carolina. (Case No. 2:20-cv-02873-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.) [hereinafter “the instant action”], ECF No. 1-2.) For the reasons discussed below, Sease's §2255 Motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Criminal Case Number 2:06-cr-20304-JPM-1

On September 16, 2008, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Tennessee returned a second superseding indictment against Sease, charging him with one count of Conspiracy Against Rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Count 1), one count of Conspiracy to Possess Controlled Substances With Intent to Distribute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 2), twelve counts of Robbery and Extortion Under the Color of Law Interfering With Interstate Commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (the “Hobbs Act”) (Counts 3-14), eleven counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (Counts 15-25), twelve counts of Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Counts 26-37), thirteen counts of Using a Firearm in Relation to the Commission of a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Counts 38-50), and one count of Money Laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (Count 51). (Criminal Case No. 2:06-cr-20304-JPM-1 (W.D. Tenn.), ECF No. 228 [hereinafter “Criminal Case”].) The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarized the scheme that led to the criminal charges in the opinion on direct appeal:

Arthur Sease was a Memphis police officer until he was fired by the department in late 2004. The jury found that Sease was the principal co-conspirator in a plan to acquire money and drugs from drug dealers for his own benefit and the benefit of his coconspirators. Three other Memphis police officers-Antoine Owens, Andrew Hunt, and Alexander Johnson-as well as other associates and relatives of Sease, were involved in the conspiracy.

Sease's convictions are based on fourteen separate incidents. The incidents follow the same basic plan. Sease would arrange for a drug buy or a drug sell (using drugs taken in a previous incident) using a non-officer contact as the front person. As the deal was occurring, either Sease or one of his fellow co-conspirator officers would arrive at the scene to make a purported arrest and seize the money and drugs involved in the deal. The participants would then be released, and Sease and his conspirators would split the proceeds without reporting the incidents.

The first incident lays out most clearly the conspiracy's general operational plan that was followed in later incidents. In November or December 2003, Sease arranged for his cousin to set up a drug deal with Dejuan “Nard” Brooks. Acting outside of his assigned beat, Sease observed the deal in an unmarked police car while wearing plain clothes. When Brooks's SUV pulled up next to Sease's cousin's vehicle, Sease radioed for Owens to come to the scene in uniform in a patrol car. Owens approached the two vehicles with his weapon drawn and removed both Brooks and Sease's cousin from their vehicles. Operating under Sease's instructions to “make it look real,” Owens roughed up Sease's cousin and placed him in the back of the patrol car. Meanwhile, Sease searched Brooks's SUV and found a bag containing a half-kilogram of cocaine, which Sease placed in the front seat of his unmarked vehicle. Owens also seized $11,000 from Brooks, then released him without an arrest. Once Brooks left, Sease's cousin was released from Owens's patrol car, and the drugs were dropped off at a South Memphis house, where they were later used to set up another drug sale. Owens, Sease, and Officer Johnson then split the $11,000 in cash.

United States v. Sease, 659 F.3d 519, 521 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, (Oct. 1, 2012).

On February 5, 2009, a jury returned a verdict finding Sease guilty as to Counts 1-11, 13-18, 20-24, 26-33, 35-46, and 48-49 and not guilty as to Counts 12, 25, 34, 47, 50, and 51. (Criminal Case, ECF No. 311; See also Criminal Case, ECF No. 423 (summarizing the jury verdict.)) Count 19 was voluntarily dismissed by the Government before trial. (Criminal Case, ECF No. 287.)

Sease was found guilty of Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Count 1); Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute 5 Kilograms or More of Cocaine under 21 U.S.C § 846 (Count 2); Robbery Affecting Commerce and Aiding and Abetting under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2 (Counts 3-11, 13, and 14); Possession and Attempted Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute and Aiding and Abetting under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts 15, 17, 20, and 22); Possession and Attempted Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and Aiding and Abetting under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts 16, 18, and 21); Possession and Attempted Possession of 500 Grams or More of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute and Aiding and Abetting under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts 23 and 24); Deprivations of Civil Rights Under Color of Law and Aiding and Abetting under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 2 (Counts 26-33 and 35); Violations of Civil Rights Involving Kidnapping and Aiding and Abetting under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 2 (Counts 36 and 37); and Carrying or Use of a Firearm During and in Relation to a Robbery Affecting Commerce and Aiding and Abetting under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2 (Counts 38-46 and 48-49). (Criminal Case ECF No. 311; See also Criminal Case, ECF No. 423.) The jury returned a special verdict with respect to Counts 1, 2, 23, 24, 26, 28-30, 32, 3444, 46, and 48-49.^[1](Criminal Case, ECF No. 311.)

On July 1, 2009, Sease was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of life plus 255 years, to be followed by five (5) years of supervised release. (Criminal Case ECF No. 423.) The Sixth Circuit affirmed Sease's conviction on October 21, 2011. United States v. Arthur Sease, IV, 659 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court denied Sease's Petition for Writ of Certiorari on October 1, 2012. Sease v. United States, 568 U.S. 827 (2012).

B. The First § 2255 Motion

Sease filed a first § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence on October 9, 2013. (Civil Case No. 2:13-cv-02793-JPM-tmp [hereinafter “first § 2255 action”], ECF No. 1.) Sease argued that he was not provided effective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. (Id.) The Court denied Sease's § 2255 Motion and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Id.; first § 2255 action, ECF No. 25.) The Court further held that any appeal in the matter would not be taken in good faith, and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (first § 2255 action, ECF No. 25 at PagelD 241.) Sease appealed, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Sease's Motion for a Certificate of Appealability on January 17, 2018. (Arthur Sease, IV v. United States, Case No. 17-5596 (6th Cir.) [hereinafter “first § 2255 appeal”], ECF No. 34.)

C. The Instant § 2255 Motion

Sease filed an Application for Leave to File a Second or Successive Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 25, 2020. (In re Arthur Sease, IV, Case No. 20-5689 (6th Cir.), ECF No. 1.) The Sixth Circuit granted Sease's motion, and transferred the case to this Court on November 25, 2020. (Id., ECF No. 8; see also the instant action, ECF No. 1.) On December 2, 2020, the Court ordered the United States to Respond. (The instant action, ECF No. 3.) The United States filed a Response in Opposition on January 14, 2021. (Id., ECF No. 9.) Sease filed a Reply to the Response of the United States in Opposition on January 19, 2021. (Id., ECF No. 10.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal prisoners who claim their sentences violate the Constitution or federal law may move their sentencing courts to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentences. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). “A prisoner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must allege either: (1) an error of constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence imposed outside the statutory limits; or (3) an error of fact or law that was so fundamental as to render the entire proceeding invalid.” Short v. United States, 471 F.3d 686, 691 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“[A] § 2255 motion is not a substitute for a direct appeal.” Ray v. United States, 721 F.3d 758, 761 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[N]onconstitutional claims that could have been raised on appeal, but were not, may not be asserted in collateral proceedings.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976). “Defendants must assert their claims in the ordinary course of trial and direct appeal.” Grant v. United States, 72 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir. 1996).

A § 2255 motion must be filed within one year of the date on which (1) the movant's conviction becomes final, (2) the movant becomes able to bring the motion, if the government was previously impeding the movant from doing so (3) “the right asserted was initially...