United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
DARREN G. LEWIS, Petitioner
CHRIS MCCONNELL, Respondent
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes, United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C.
§ 2241) filed by pro se Petitioner Darren G. Lewis
(“Lewis”) (#26788-034). Lewis is an inmate in the
custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”),
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Pollock, Louisiana. Lewis challenges the legality of his
Lewis cannot meet the requirements of the savings clause of
28 U.S.C. § 2255, his petition should be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
entered a guilty plea to three counts of interfering with
commerce by committing robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951 (“Hobbs Act robbery”), and one count
of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The Court
sentenced him to prison for an aggregate term of 324 months.
Lewis v. United States, 3:13-CR-338, 2017 WL
3896371, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2017), report and
recommendation adopted, 3:13-CR-338, 2017 WL 3868281
(N.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2017). Lewis did not appeal. Id.
filed a motion to vacate or correct an illegal sentence under
28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising four claims: (1) Lewis's
due process rights were violated when he was convicted under
section 924(c), which he asserts was invalidated under the
reasoning set forth in Johnson v. United States, 135
S.Ct. 2551 (2015); (2) the court made an example out of him
because he was, at one time, a professional athlete; (3) the
evidence was insufficient to prove he committed the charged
offenses; and (4) he pleaded guilty without understanding the
consequences of that plea. Id. The district court
found that Lewis's motion was untimely, and that §
2255(f)(3) was inapplicable. Id. at 2.
§ 2241 petition, Lewis claims that his sentence is
unlawful under Johnson and Sessions v.
Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018).
Law and Analysis
Lewis cannot meet the requirements of the savings
seeks to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255(e),
which provides a limited exception to the rule that a §
2241 petition may not be used to challenge the validity of a
federal sentence and conviction. See Pack v. Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). The savings clause allows
a prisoner to rely on § 2241 if the remedy available
under § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e). The petitioner bears the burden of
affirmatively proving that the § 2255 remedy is
inadequate. See McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10
(5th Cir. 1979).
state a claim under the savings clause, a petitioner must
show that the claim is based on a retroactively applicable
Supreme Court decision that establishes the petitioner may
have been convicted of a nonexistent offense, and the claim
was foreclosed by circuit law at the time it should have been
raised in the petitioner's trial, appeal, or first §
2255 motion. Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243
F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
argues that he may proceed under the savings clause because
Johnson and Dimaya render his sentence
invalid. In Johnson, the Supreme Court invalidated
the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984,
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), which defined a
“violent felony” as one involving “conduct
that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another.” Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2563.
claims that Johnson was expanded by Dimaya.
In Dimaya, the Supreme Court held that the
definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C.
§ 16(b), as incorporated in the Immigration and
Nationality Act, is unconstitutionally vague.