Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Light v. Martin

United States District Court, Fifth Circuit

September 9, 2013

JAMES LAWRENCE LIGHT, JR., Petitioner, # XXXXX-XXX
v.
M. MARTIN, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Pro se Petitioner James Lawrence Light, Jr., filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [1]. He is presently incarcerated at the Federal Corrections Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi and attacks his arrest, drug conviction, and sentence. The Court has considered and liberally construed the pleadings. As set forth below, this case is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

On July 22, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition challenging his arrest and drug conviction and sentence handed down from the Middle District of Florida. He was convicted by a jury of possession with the intent to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine. On May 16, 2006, that court sentenced him as a career offender, under Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. He was sentenced to 262 months in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, followed by 48 months of supervised release. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. United States v. Light, 218 F.Appx. 970, 970 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2007).

On September 27, 2010, Petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus but filed it under Section 2241. Light v. O'Brien, No. 1:10cv165, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24934 at *1 (N.D. W.Va. Feb. 14, 2011). He attacked the indictment and his career offender enhancement. Id. at *3. The Northern District of West Virginia held he did not satisfy the savings clause, because, "the crime for which the petitioner was convicted remains a criminal offense." Id. at *13-14. See also, Light v. O'Brien, No. 1:10cv165, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25072 (N.D. W.Va. Mar. 10, 2011) (adopting magistrate judge's recommendation). On August 29, 2011, Petitioner filed his second[1] Section 2241 petition, but he filed it in the court of conviction. Light v. McCoun, No. 8:11cv1961, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109403 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2011). This time, he challenged the arrest warrant on the same grounds as here, i.e., that it was improperly issued. Id. at *1. See also, Light v. Rios, No. 1:11cv1745, 2011 U.S. Dist., LEXIS 134051 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011). The Middle District of Florida denied the petition. McCoun, No. 8:11cv1961, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109403 at *5. On October 19, Petitioner filed his third Section 2241 petition. Light v. Rios, No. 1:11cv1745, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134051 at *1. He once again attacked the arrest warrant. Id. The Eastern District of California held Petitioner failed to satisfy the Ninth Circuit's savings clause test and dismissed the petition. Id. at *5-6.

On December 13, 2011, and January 20, 2012, Petitioner filed his first two 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motions to reduce his sentence under Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines, applicable to crack cocaine offenses. These were denied. United States v. Light, No. 8:05cr341 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2012).

On May 2, 2012, Petitioner filed his fourth Section 2241 action, raising Amendment 750. Light v. Rios, No. 8:12cv976 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2012). The Middle District of Florida denied the petition on June 6.

On May 4, 2012, Petitioner filed a third motion pursuant to Section 3582, and it was denied on May 9, because he was sentenced as a career offender. Light v. Copenhaver, No. 1:12cv967, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90040 at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) (discussing procedural history).

Petitioner filed his fifth Section 2241 petition on June 15, 2012, arguing that Amendment 750 mandated a reduction in his sentence. Id. at *1-2. The Eastern District of California once again held he did not satisfy the Ninth Circuit's savings clause test. Id. at *8-9.

On August 16, 2012, Petitioner filed a generic motion for writ of habeas corpus but failed "to identify whether he s[ought] relief under... §2241, § 2254, or § 2255." Light v. Copenhaven, No. 8:12cv1866, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120420 at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2012). The Middle District of Florida dismissed the petition, because the court had no jurisdiction over the Section 2241 claim, he was not a state prisoner, and the Section 2255 claim was time barred. Id. at *2.

On October 29, 2012, Petitioner filed a fourth motion to reduce his sentence. The Middle District of Florida denied the motion. United States v. Light, No. 8:05cr341 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2012).

On November 27, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, once again challenging the arrest warrant. United States v. Light, No. 8:05cr341, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171115 at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2012). The Middle District of Florida held the arrest warrant was valid and denied the writ. Id. at *2-3.

On March 18, 2013, Petitioner filed his only explicit Motion to Vacate under Section 2255. United States v. Light, No. 8:13cv680, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88549 at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2013). It was denied as untimely on June 21. Id. at *3.

On May 28, 2013, Petitioner filed his second motion for writ of error coram nobis, which was denied by the Middle District of Florida on May 31. United States v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.