United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the Court sua sponte, for consideration of
dismissal. Pro se Petitioner Jesse Manuel Skinner is
incarcerated with the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”),
and he brings this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his
convictions. The Court has considered and liberally construed
the pleadings, and finds that this case should be dismissed.
is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in
Herlong, California. Skinner was convicted in this Court of
possession of ecstasy and LSD with intent to distribute,
possession of pseudoephedrine for manufacturing
methamphetamine, conspiracies to manufacture methamphetamine
and to import ecstasy and LSD, two counts of assault on
federal law enforcement officers, receiving and possessing an
unregistered destructive device, and making false statements
to a licensed firearms dealer. United States v.
Skinner, 1:02cv93-DCB (S.D.Miss. Feb. 17, 2004)
(Judgment). For this Skinner was sentenced on January 14,
2004, to a total term of imprisonment of forty-five years in
the custody of the BOP. Id. The Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed Skinner's conviction and sentence,
(Pet. at 2), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on
October 31, 2005.
next twelve years, a series of motions and civil actions
ensued, some of which are detailed below. On October 27,
2006, Skinner filed his first Motion to Vacate, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. The Court denied the
motion on July 14, 2009. Id. The Fifth Circuit
denied a Certificate of Appealability. United States v.
Skinner, 09-60698 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2010). The Supreme
Court once again denied certiorari. Skinner v. United
States, 562 U.S. 1193 (2011). Skinner then moved for
leave to file a second motion to vacate, which the Fifth
Circuit denied on August 31, 2011. In re: Skinner,
11-60478 (5th Cir. Aug. 31, 2011).
month later Skinner filed a motion in the trial court, which
he styled as a “Motion 60(b).” United States
v. Skinner, 1:02cr93-DCB (S.D.Miss. Sept. 30, 2011). The
Court denied this motion as a successive § 2255
petition, and warned Skinner that “[a]ny attempt to
circumvent” the requirement that he must first obtain
permission from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive §
2255 petition “in the future will be summarily
dismissed as the Court has devoted considerable resources to
Petitioner's cause.” United States v.
Skinner, 1:02cr93-DCB, 2012 WL 718870 at *3 (S.D.Miss.
Mar. 5, 2012). The Fifth Circuit again denied a Certificate
of Appealability. United States v. Skinner, 12-60229
(5th Cir. Aug. 31, 2012).
filed a third Motion to Vacate on June 9, 2014. United
States v. Skinner, 1:02cr93-DCB, 2015 WL 461663 at *1
(S.D.Miss. Feb. 4, 2015). The Court denied this motion, both
as successive and on the merits. Id. at *1-2.
Skinner filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to a
retroactive amendment in the Sentencing Guidelines.
United States v. Skinner, 1:02cr93-DCB (S.D.Miss.
Jul. 6, 2015). This motion was granted on December 14, 2015,
and the Court reduced Skinner's sentence to a total of
thirty-five years. United States v. Skinner,
1:02cr93-DCB (S.D.Miss. Dec. 14, 2015).
12, 2017, Skinner filed, in his criminal case, a pleading
styled “Motion to Dismiss this Instance the [sic]
Indictment Filed 12/17/2002 for its Failure to State with
Specificity the Federal Location Where the Crimes Were
Allegedly Committed Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure 12(b)(2) and (3)(B)(iii) Which Deprives the
District Court Jurisdiction [sic] Over the Subject Matter at
Issue.” United States v. Skinner, 1:02cr93-DCB
(S.D.Miss. Jun. 12, 2017). This motion remains pending.
on July 11, 2017, Skinner filed, in the Northern Division of
this Court, his first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Skinner v. Nash,
3:17cv550-WHB-LRA (S.D.Miss. Aug. 30, 2017). At the time,
Skinner was incarcerated in the Northern Division, at the
Federal Correctional Center in Yazoo City, Mississippi.
Id. at 1. Skinner argued that the Court had no
jurisdiction to convict him because: (1) he is a sovereign
citizen, who was arrested and committed the crimes on his
private property in Harrison County, Mississippi, which he
contends is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States; (2) the search and arrest warrants were
illegal; (3) the criminal complaint was not filed by a
federal officer; (4) the indictment failed to show the crimes
occurred at a federal location; and (5) the officers Skinner
assaulted were not federal officers. Id. at 3-4. The
Court dismissed that case, holding the claims were not
properly brought under § 2241 because Skinner had failed
to satisfy § 2255's savings clause, and that even if
construed as a successive § 2255 petition, the case was
both duplicative and without the proper authorization to
proceed. Id. at 5. Skinner appealed this dismissal
to the Fifth Circuit, where the case remains pending in
Skinner v. Nash, appeal number 17-60700.
present case before the Court constitutes Skinner's
second § 2241 Petition. It was filed on December 1,
2017, and Skinner has paid the filing fee. The current §
2241 Petition is nearly identical to the first one, as
Skinner again argues that the Court lacked jurisdiction to
convict him for many of the same reasons set forth in his
previous § 2241 Petition. Skinner specifically invokes
§ 2241, arguing, as with the prior petition, that §
2255 “may have been inadequate” to test the
legality of his detention. (Pet. at 1-2). One key difference
between the instant case and Skinner's prior § 2241
Petition is that Skinner is no longer incarcerated within the
Southern District of Mississippi. Petitioner seeks release
to § 2241 a petitioner may attack the manner in which
his sentence is being executed in the district court with
jurisdiction over his custodian. United States v.
Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992). By contrast, a
motion filed pursuant to § 2255 “provides the
primary means of collateral attack on a federal
sentence.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451
(5th Cir. 2000). However, “[u]nder the savings clause
of § 2255, if the petitioner can show that § 2255
provides him an inadequate or ineffective remedy, he may
proceed by way of § 2241.” Wesson v. U.S.
Penitentiary, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002).
district court in the district where the prisoner is
incarcerated may entertain a § 2241 petition, even when
the petitioner challenges the validity of his sentence.
Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 375 n.4 (5th ...