Source: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2020/jun/1/tenth-circuit-reinstates-colorado-prisoners-claim-requires-bop-release-him-imprisonment-marijuana-possession/
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 08:12:00
Document Index: 123511990

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255']

Tenth Circuit Reinstates Colorado Prisoner’s Claim that Requires BOP to Release Him from Imprisonment for Marijuana Possession | Prison Legal News
Tenth Circuit Reinstates Colorado Prisoner’s Claim that Requires BOP to Release Him from Imprisonment for Marijuana Possession
Loaded on June 1, 2020 by Matthew Clarke published in Prison Legal News June, 2020, page 58
Filed under: State Law Claims, Marijuana Laws/Issues.
On December 16, 2019, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Colorado federal prisoner Aaron Sandusky’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, thereby remanding the case for further proceedings. The writ claimed that a congressional appropriations rider prohibits the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) from using its funds to prevent any state from implementing its own laws regarding the “use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” The implications of this ruling include requiring the DOJ to cease using funds to imprison Sandusky on marijuana-related charges, which would result in his release.
Sandusky was the president of G3 Holistic Inc., a California-based medical marijuana cooperative that grew and sold plants and products. In 2012, he was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with the intent to distribute both marijuana plants and mixtures containing marijuana. He received two concurrent 120-month federal sentences.
After an unsuccessful appeal in June 2015, Sandusky filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California sentencing court, seeking to “vacate, set aside, or correct” his sentence, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The petition claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and wrongful imprisonment on the basis of the appropriations rider.
The district court denied the petition in November 2015, holding that, among other things, the claim regarding the appropriations rider could not be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, seeing that it was a challenge to the execution of the sentence, not to the constitutionality or lawfulness of the conviction or sentence.
Soon thereafter, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2016 on a case involving defendants seeking to avoid federal prosecution for various marijuana offenses. The Court asserted that the DOJ is prohibited “from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts” to prosecute individuals who acted in full compliance with their State Medical Marijuana Laws.
Sandusky then filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in June 2018, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in Colorado’s federal court. In this, he claimed that the appropriations rider prohibited the BOP from spending funds to incarcerate him. He alleged that the conduct for which he was convicted was entirely legal with the then-existing California medical marijuana laws and asserted he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. If this hearing were to establish his claimed compliance, he would be entitled to immediate release from BOP custody.
The district court concluded that his claim implicated the legality of his sentence and therefore could only be raised in a § 2255 petition. Therefore, it dismissed the petition in early December 2018.
Aided by Colorado federal public defenders Kathleen Shen and Virginia L. Grady, Sandusky appealed. The Tenth Circuit noted that the appropriations rider, originally enacted in 2014, had been enacted multiple times in nearly identical form in appropriations acts passed since then.
The court clarified that § 2241 was the appropriate vehicle to challenge the execution of a sentence, holding that Sandusky’s appropriations act claim was such a challenge. Sandusky was not seeking formal modification of his sentence and would presumably be subject to re-incarceration if, after release, Congress failed to continue enacting new riders.
Further, the previous ruling denying his § 2255 petition did not preclude him from raising the claim in a § 2241 petition. Lastly, the claim was based on a different rider than the one used in the § 2255 claim, a second reason it was not precluded. Therefore, the court reversed the dismissal of the petition and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. See: Sandusky v. Goetz, 844 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2019).
844 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2019).
New York Court of Appeals Reverses for Reporter in Confidentiality Issue, Nov. 3, 2015. State Law Claims, Witnesses.
No Oregon Constitutional Right to “Full” Victim Restitution; Contributory Negligence May Limit Restitution Award, Nov. 2, 2015. Victims, State Law Claims, Restitution, State Statutes.
Mississippi Supreme Court Reverses Time Bar in Wrongful Conviction Civil Suit, Oct. 28, 2015. State Law Claims, Appeals, Limitations, Wrongful Conviction.
CDCR Violates State Law by Outsourcing Prisoner Lawsuits to Private Attorneys , Oct. 19, 2015. Contractor Misconduct, Attorney, State Law Claims.
Arkansas Prisoners’ Community-Punishment Denied, Oct. 14, 2015. State Law Claims, Parole, Alternative Sentencing.
$1,00,000 Verdict Reinstated for Family of Man Shot by Police, Oct. 13, 2015. State Law Claims, Police--Excessive Force.
Restitution Order Upheld in Oregon Driving Case, Sept. 22, 2015. State Law Claims, Retroactivity, Restitution.
Florida Appeals Court Invalidates Private Company Traffic Tickets, Sept. 21, 2015. State Law Claims, Private Corrections Industry News.
Supreme Court: No Bivens Actions for Federal Prisoners in Private Prison, Feb. 15, 2013. GEO Group/Wackenhut, Skeletal Injury, Private Contractors, Restraints, Civil Procedure, State Law Claims.