Source: http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190311_0000678.EAR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-11-12 16:36:39
Document Index: 793697078

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

FindACase™ | Irvin-Bey v. Beasley
Irvin-Bey v. Beasley
JERMAINE DUANE IRVIN-BEY REG # 45966-177 PETITIONER
GENE BEASLEY, Warden, FCI-Forrest City, Arkansas[1] RESPONDENT
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 2). Also before the Court are petitioner Jermaine Duane Irvin-Bey's motion for copies, motion for judicial clarification, motion for release of funds, motion for remedy, and two motions for order (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12). Along with his motion for copies, Mr. Irvin-Bey filed timely objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 3, Ex. A). After careful consideration of the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, the objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 2). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Irvin-Bey's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The requested relief is denied.
In his motion for copies, Mr. Irvin-Bey states that Exhibit A to his motion serves as his objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 3, at 3). Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of Mr. Irvin-Bey's objections to the presentence report from his criminal conviction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for which he is currently serving a sentence, Jermaine Duane Irvin v. USA, No. 4:13-cr-00035-A-4 (Dkt. No. 3, Ex. A). On July 27, 2015, Mr. Irvin-Bey filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, which the sentencing court denied. See Irvin v. USA, No. 4:15-cv-00551-A, Dkt. No. 15 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2015).
In the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, Judge Kearney determines that the claims Mr. Irvin-Bey attempts to bring in his current habeas petition also challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence as imposed. Such claims must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 instead of under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the statute under which Mr. Irvin-Bey claims to bring his current habeas petition (Dkt. No. 2, at 4). However, as Judge Kearney notes, if Mr. Irvin-Bey can affirmatively demonstrate that the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, then Mr. Irvin-Bey may challenge the validity of his criminal conviction under § 2241, an exception to the general bar on such claims sometimes called the “savings clause.” (Id.).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has consistently held that the “savings clause” may not be invoked to raise an issue under § 2241 that could have been raised in a direct appeal or in a § 2255 motion in the sentencing district. Nichols v. Symmes, 553 F.3d 647, 650 (8th Cir. 2009). The Eighth Circuit has expressly confirmed that § 2255 will not be viewed as inadequate or ineffective “merely because § 2255 relief has already been denied, or because petitioner has been denied permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, or because a second or successive § 2255 motion has been dismissed[.]” United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted); see also Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003) (concluding that “in order to establish a remedy is ‘inadequate or ineffective' under § 2255, there must be more than a procedural barrier to bringing a § 2255 petition”).
Mr. Irvin-Bey's objections do not relate to his current habeas petition. They do not show why the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Further, the savings clause does not apply to Mr. Irvin-Bey merely because § 2255 relief was previously denied by the sentencing court. See Irvin v. USA, No. 4:15-cv-00551-A (N.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2015). Because Mr. Irvin-Bey has not shown that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, Mr. Irvin-Bey has failed to show that the savings clause should apply to his current petition. As a result, the Court dismisses without prejudice his current petition that challenges the validity of his conviction or sentence as imposed brought under § 2241.
II. Motion For Copies
In his motion for copies, Mr. Irvin-Bey requests copies of several documents that are directly related to his criminal conviction (Dkt. No. 3, at 5). Mr. Irvin-Bey asserts that these documents are necessary “to prove error, misrepresentation, fraud in the factum, dishonor, and a total miscarriage of justice by the United States and its agents/actors in violation of the Constitution.” (Id., at 4). The documents that Mr. Irvin-Bey requests do not appear to relate to his habeas petition or application of the savings clause in this case. Further, because the documents Mr. Irvin-Bey requests relate to his criminal conviction, the sentencing court in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas has the requested documents, not this Court. Therefore, this Court denies Mr. Irvin-Bey's motion for copies (Dkt. No. 3).
III. Motion For Judicial Clarification
Mr. Irvin-Bey also filed a motion for judicial clarification (Dkt. No. 4). In the motion, he requests clarification regarding the legal basis for Judge Kearney's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition and seeks a signed and sworn affidavit from the Court (Id.). The Court will not conduct legal research for or at the request of Mr. Irvin-Bey, just as it will not conduct legal research for or at the request of any litigant. The Court also will not provide a signed and sworn affidavit to Mr. Ivrin-Bey.
Based on Mr. Irvin-Bey's motion, it is unclear to the Court if he claims that he has not been able to access the prison's law library. To the extent Mr. Irvin-Bey wishes to pursue a claim based on access to the prison's law library, Mr. Irvin-Bey may bring a separate claim in a separate action based on his constitutional right of access to the courts.
For these reasons, the Court denies Mr. Irvin-Bey's motion for judicial clarification (Dkt. No. 4).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IV. Motion For ...