Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_15-cv-00113/USCOURTS-ared-2_15-cv-00113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

CHARLES LAZONE HOLLYWOOD PETITIONER

Reg #35787-044

VS. CASE NO.: 2:15CV00113 JM/BD

C. V. RIVERA, Warden, 

Federal Correctional Complex,

Forrest City, Arkansas RESPONDENT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections

This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United

States District Judge James M. Moody Jr. Mr. Hollywood may file written objections

with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of filing of the Recommendation.

Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. 

If no objections are filed, Judge Moody can adopt this Recommendation without

independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, Mr. Hollywood may also waive

any right to appeal questions of fact.

II. Background

Petitioner Charles Lazone Hollywood pleaded guilty in the United States Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri to distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base. 

Case 2:15-cv-00113-JM Document 3 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 6
(Docket entry #1 at p. 2) The Missouri judge sentenced Mr. Hollywood as a career

offender to 144 months’ imprisonment.1 (Id.) 

Mr. Hollywood filed a previous pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus with this

Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming: that he was actually innocent of being a career

offender; that the enhancement to his sentence was an error; and that the error was

causing a miscarriage of justice. Hollywood v. Rivera, 2:14cv00149-JM, (filed December

22, 2014) The Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Mr.

Hollywood’s claim (that his sentence exceeded the maximum sentence allowed) could

only be brought with the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Hollywood,

2:14cv00149-JM at docket entries #10 and #13. 

Mr. Hollywood has now filed a second pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In this petition, he cites Johnson v. U.S., __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct.

2551 (2015), where the United States Supreme Court held the “residual clause” of the

Armed Career Criminal Act to be unconstitutionally vague. Mr. Hollywood argues that

the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. 2255(e) now applies to his case. For the reasons that

follow, the Court will recommend DISMISSAL of the petition without prejudice.

1After Mr. Hollywood was sentenced, the guideline sentencing range was lowered,

and the change was made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission. Mr.

Hollywood filed a motion for reduction of his sentence based upon the change, which the

trial court denied. 

2

Case 2:15-cv-00113-JM Document 3 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 6
III. Jurisdiction

Generally, a federal inmate claiming that his sentence exceeds the maximum

allowed by law must be brought with the sentencing court through a motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Lopez-Lopez

v. Sanders, 590 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2010)(citing Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957,

959 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1147, 125 S.Ct. 2984 (2005)). A habeas

corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, on the other hand, attacks the execution of a

sentence, or the manner in which the sentence is being carried out. A court cannot

entertain a petition for habeas corpus under § 2241, “if it appears the applicant has failed

to apply for relief, by [§ 2255] motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such

court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by [§ 2255] motion is

inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. §

2255(e)(emphasis added). The last clause is a provision generally referred to as § 2255’s

“savings clause.” Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 959. 

Mr. Hollywood argues that the savings clause applies in this case. A petitioner

who seeks to take advantage of the savings clause must demonstrate that seeking relief

from the sentencing court would be inadequate or ineffective. Lopez-Lopez, 590 F.3d at

907 (citing Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 959). This exception, however, is a “narrowly

circumscribed safety valve.” United States ex rel. Perez v. Warden, FMC Rochester, 286

F.3d 1059, 1061-62 (8th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 869, 123 S.Ct. 275 (2002). 

3

Case 2:15-cv-00113-JM Document 3 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 6
The fact that an individual is barred from filing a § 2255 motion for procedural reasons

does not render the remedy inadequate or ineffective so as to permit a petitioner to file

under § 2241. Lopez-Lopez, 590 F.3d at 907. Further, the § 2255 remedy is not deemed

inadequate or ineffective because the claim was raised in a previous § 2255 motion and

rejected – either because the petitioner was denied leave to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 petition, or because a § 2255 petition was time-barred. Id. 

Here, Mr. Hollywood filed a prior petition with the sentencing court under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Hollywood v. U.S.,

1:12cv00155-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sept.14, 2012). In the petition, Mr. Hollywood argued

that, under the United States Supreme Court case of Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S.

13, (2005), one of the prior convictions the sentencing court relied on to enhance the

sentence, was not a violent felony. Hollywood, at docket entry #2 (filed Sept. 14, 2012). 

The sentencing court issued an order to show cause why his petition should not be

dismissed as untimely. Id. at #3. Mr. Hollywood responded to the order, but the court

found his arguments to be without merit and dismissed the petition as time barred. Id. at

#5 (filed Oct. 22, 2012). 

Mr. Hollywood filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his petition. The

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals treated the notice as an application for a certificate of

appealability and denied it. Hollywood v. U.S., No. 12-3725, (8th Cir. March 20, 2013).

4

Case 2:15-cv-00113-JM Document 3 Filed 08/04/15 Page 4 of 6
Mr. Hollywood then filed a second petition to vacate, set aside or correct his

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on May 19, 2014, arguing that he was incorrectly

sentenced as a career offender, citing on Descamps v. U.S., 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). 

Hollywood v. U.S., Case No. 1:14cv00067-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. May 19, 2014). The

sentencing court found the petition to be successive and transferred it to the Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals, which treated it as an application to file a successive petition. 

Id. at #5, #6. The Court denied Mr. Hollywood’s application. Hollywood v. U.S., Case

No. 14-2312 (Oct. 20, 2014). 

Mr. Hollywood challenged his sentence based on Descamps in his first habeas

petition filed in this Court, arguing that his offenses did not qualify as predicate offenses

to qualify him as a career offender. Hollywood v. Rivera, 2:14cv00149-JM, docket entry

#1 at 2. Mr. Hollywood argued that the savings clause applied because he was actually

innocent of being a career offender. Id. This Court dismissed his petition for lack of

jurisdiction, noting that he had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to raise his claim

with the sentencing court and the fact that his claim was rejected as time-barred did not

render the remedy inadequate or ineffective so as to permit him to file a petition under 

§ 2241. See Lopez-Lopez, 590 F.3d at 907; Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 960–64. 

Here, Mr. Hollywood again argues that the savings clause is applicable. This time,

however, he relies on the recent United States Supreme Court case of Johnson v. U.S., __

U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Court held that the “residual clause” of

5

Case 2:15-cv-00113-JM Document 3 Filed 08/04/15 Page 5 of 6
the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. Mr. Hollywood argues that

the Johnson decision is retroactive and asks that he should be resentenced. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson does not render the savings clause of 28

U.S.C. 2255(e) applicable to Mr. Hollywood’s case. Mr. Hollywood has not

demonstrated that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective in order to trigger the

statute’s savings clause. But, Mr. Hollywood may petition the Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2), citing the

Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson. 

IV. Conclusion

Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Hollywood’s 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, this Court recommends that Mr.

Hollywood’s petition (#1) be DISMISSED, without prejudice. 

DATED this 4th day of August, 2015.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:15-cv-00113-JM Document 3 Filed 08/04/15 Page 6 of 6