United States District Court, D. Kansas
ANTHONY D. SPRADLEY, Petitioner,
N.C. ENGLISH, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. LUNGSTRUM U.S. District Judge
matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Petitioner, a prisoner in federal custody,
proceeds pro se.
along with several others, was convicted in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana of crimes related
to their participation in a large drug conspiracy based in
Indianapolis, Indiana, and running from approximately 1992 to
1997. U.S. v. Thompson, 286 F.3d 950 (7th Cir.
2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1134 (2003).
1996, Marcus Willis began working for law enforcement
officials and infiltrated the group. In June 1997, Willis was
murdered in a vehicle belonging to one of the defendants.
Following that, criminal charges were filed against
petitioner and several other participants in the conspiracy.
Petitioner was charged with conspiracy to distribute more
than five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 and murder of an informant in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C). He was acquitted of the
sentencing, the district court sentenced petitioner to life
imprisonment on the drug conspiracy count under §2D1.1
of the Sentencing Guidelines and found that the
§2D1.1(d)(1) murder cross-reference was applicable to
petitioner and certain other defendants. Finally, the court
sentenced petitioner to a consecutive term of 20 years for
appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed petitioner's conviction and upheld the
application of the drug offense murder cross-reference to
him, finding the evidence was sufficient to show it was
reasonably foreseeable to him that Willis would be murdered
with malice aforethought.
also sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging his
defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to
properly challenge the application of the murder
cross-reference to him.
action, petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief under
Burrage v. United States, __U.S.__, 134 S.Ct. 881
(2014). In Burrage, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
a criminal defendant cannot be held liable for the
death-results enhancement provision unless the use of the
drug supplied was a but-for cause of the death.
federal prisoner, petitioner has two distinct remedies for
post-conviction relief. First, he may challenge the legality
of his conviction or sentence by filing a motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court. This provision
generally provides a federal prisoner with “one
adequate and effective opportunity to test the legality of
his detention, in his initial §2255 motion.”
Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 586 (10th Cir.
2011). If that remedy is unsuccessful, the prisoner may file
a “second or successive” motion under § 2255
only if the appropriate court of appeals grants prior
authorization, which requires a finding that the motion
presents either newly discovered evidence that would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that
no reasonable factfinder would have found the prisoner guilty
or that the prisoner relies on a new rule of constitutional
law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the
U.S. Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h).
contrast, “[p]etitions under § 2241 are used to
attack the execution of a sentence … [and] the fact or
duration of a prisoner's confinement….”
McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115
F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997)(quotations and brackets
omitted). A petition brought under § 2241 is filed in
the district where the petitioner is incarcerated.
motion remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “is generally
the exclusive remedy for a federal prisoner seeking to attack
the legality of detention, and must be filed in the district
that imposed the sentence.” Brace v. United
States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011)(citation
omitted). The single exception to this appears in the savings
clause of § 2255(e), which provides: “a federal
prisoner may resort to § 2241 to contest his conviction
if but only if the § 2255 remedial mechanism is
‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.'” Prost, 636 F.3d at 580
(quoting 28 U.S.C. ...