Fleming v. FCI-Dublin Warden
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:23-cv-00017
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Fleming v. FCI-Dublin Warden, Judge Cousins transferred Fleming’s petition challenging her conviction to Texas without deciding whether her conviction was valid.
Rhonda Ann Fleming’s petition challenging her conviction or sentence was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Southern District of Texas; the order did not decide the validity of her conviction.
What happened
Fleming v. FCI-Dublin Warden concerns Rhonda Ann Fleming’s petition challenging the validity of her conviction or sentence. She asked the court to vacate her conviction.
The court explained that this type of challenge generally belongs in the federal court for the district where the conviction occurred. Fleming argued that her conviction was unconstitutional because the law had changed, rather than relying on the limited exception allowing a federal prisoner to use this type of petition to challenge a conviction.
The court transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and noted that Fleming might also need permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to pursue a second challenge. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered the clerk to transfer the case immediately.
The detailed version
- Fleming v. FCI-Dublin Warden · No. 5:23-cv-00017
- Nathanael Cousins
- Feb. 3, 2023
Background
Rhonda Ann Fleming filed a federal petition challenging “the validity of [her] conviction or sentence.” She requested that her conviction be vacated. The respondent was identified as the FCI-Dublin Warden.
Legal framework
The court explained that a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordinarily reviews how a federal sentence is being carried out, rather than attacking the conviction or sentence itself. In limited circumstances, a federal prisoner may use § 2241 to challenge a conviction or sentence under the “escape hatch” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The court cited the requirements that the prisoner claim actual innocence and must not have previously had a fair procedural opportunity to present that claim.
Court’s reasoning
Fleming stated on the face of her petition that she was challenging the validity of her conviction or sentence, not how her sentence was being carried out. She argued that her conviction was unconstitutional because of an intervening change in the law. The court therefore concluded that the petition properly should be filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, identified as the district of conviction, and/or in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The court also cited 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2), which allows a petitioner to seek permission from the appropriate federal appeals court to file a second or successive motion based on a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court and previously unavailable.
Disposition
The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d), and directed the clerk to transfer the matter immediately. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.