Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01151/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Matevousian
Respondent
Eddie Rollerson
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE ROLLERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-01151-LJO-SKO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THE COURT DISMISS PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 24)

Petitioner Eddie Rollerson is a federal prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent Andre Matevousian, Warden, United 

States Penitentiary, Atwater, California, moves to dismiss the petition as erroneously brought 

under § 2241 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that 

its decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551(2015), applies retroactively, the 

undersigned agrees that Petitioner must bring his claims pursuant to § 2255. Welch v. United 

States, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss 

the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to Petitioner’s advancing 

his claim in a § 2255 action filed in the appropriate jurisdiction.

I. Procedural and Factual Background

On August 9, 2007, in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Petitioner 

pleaded guilty to a single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in 

Case 1:15-cv-01151-LJO-SKO Document 25 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). On October 23, 2007, the trial court sentenced 

Petitioner to 180 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release.

On July 22, 2013, Petitioner moved to vacate his sentence under § 2255. The Florida 

district court adopted the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge and denied the 

motion on August 6, 2014.

On July 24, 2015, Petitioner, who was then incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary, 

Atwater, filed the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 in this 

district. Petitioner was subsequently relocated to the Low Federal Correctional Institution, Yazoo 

City, Mississippi.

II. Retroactive Application of Johnson

A felon’s possession of a firearm is a crime punishable by a prison term of up to ten years. 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA) increased 

that sentence to a mandatory fifteen years to life sentence if the offender had three or more prior 

convictions for a serious drug offense or violent felony. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The statutory 

definition of a violent felony included, in the so-called “residual clause,” any felony that 

“otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause violated due 

process, striking it down as unconstitutional under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. Welch, 136 

S.Ct. at 1260-61. 

In his § 2241 petition, Petitioner argued that under Johnson, he was entitled to relief from 

his sentence, which had been enhanced under the residual clause of § 925((e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Petitioner reasoned that the effect of the Johnson holding was to render Petitioner actually 

innocent and entitled to § 2241 relief. Respondent opposed the petition, contending that because 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01151-LJO-SKO Document 25 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Petitioner had not proven that § 2255 is ineffective or inadequate to evaluate the legality of his 

sentence, he was not entitled to § 2241 relief. 

After the parties had briefed their arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Johnson 

was retroactive in cases on collateral review. Welch, 136 S.Ct. at 1268. As a result, the parties’ 

arguments have become moot. Because Petitioner is now retroactively entitled to seek § 2255 

relief from his sentence, which was enhanced under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), an unconstitutional 

provision, the proper avenue for relief is through a § 2255 motion in the sentencing district.1 

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss the above-captioned § 2241 

petition, without prejudice to Petitioner’s advancing his claim in a § 2255 petition in the proper 

jurisdiction.

III. Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 

before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by 

the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 

to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for 

commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the 

United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending 

removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from —

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 

1

Petitioner must first seek authorization of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to bring a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255(h)(2).

Case 1:15-cv-01151-LJO-SKO Document 25 Filed 06/27/16 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 

only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by 

paragraph (2).

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

"something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that Petitioner is not entitled 

to federal habeas corpus relief under § 2241 to be debatable or wrong, or conclude that the issues 

presented required further adjudication. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

The undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss the § 2241 petition for writ of habeas 

corpus without prejudice and decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty 

(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, either party may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate 

Case 1:15-cv-01151-LJO-SKO Document 25 Filed 06/27/16 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Replies to the objections, if any, shall be served and 

filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District 

Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 ((9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01151-LJO-SKO Document 25 Filed 06/27/16 Page 5 of 5