Spencer v. Marques
- Susan Nelson
- 0:18-cv-02587
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Spencer v. Marques, Judge Nelson denied Spencer’s release petition and expedition motion because § 2241 was not the proper route.
Antwoyn Spencer’s § 2241 challenge to his convictions and sentence was denied, and the action was dismissed without prejudice; R. Marques was the respondent.
What happened
In Spencer v. Marques, Antwoyn Spencer challenged his federal convictions and sentence through a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the trial court’s jury instructions differed improperly from the indictment. He also asked the court to speed up the case.
The court explained that federal prisoners generally must challenge their convictions or sentences through a motion under § 2255 in the sentencing court, not through a § 2241 petition in the district where they are confined. Spencer had already used § 2255 and did not show that remedy was inadequate or ineffective. The court therefore did not reach the substance of his jury-instruction arguments.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Spencer’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied the § 2241 petition, and denied the motion to expedite. The court also dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Spencer v. Marques · No. 0:18-cv-02587
- Susan Nelson
- Nov. 5, 2018
Background
Antwoyn Spencer, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his federal convictions and sentence. He argued that the trial court’s jury instructions created several variances from the indictment, including differences concerning the conspiracy period, the number of conspirators, the drug offense, and the financial-transaction offense. Spencer also moved to expedite the proceedings.
Spencer had previously filed two unsuccessful motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He had also filed several earlier § 2241 petitions, which the opinion says had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A magistrate judge recommended denying the current § 2241 petition, finding that Spencer’s arguments could have been raised in his first § 2255 motion. Spencer objected to that recommendation.
Court’s analysis
The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently. It held that a federal prisoner generally must bring a collateral challenge to a federal conviction or sentence under § 2255 in the sentencing court, rather than under § 2241 in the district of incarceration. A § 2241 petition may proceed only if the prisoner shows that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. The court stated that the prior denial of § 2255 relief, or another procedural barrier to filing under § 2255, does not by itself establish that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective.
The court concluded that Spencer’s arguments could have been raised in his first § 2255 motion and that he had not shown § 2255 to be inadequate or ineffective. Because § 2255 was the exclusive remedy for his challenge, the court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition. The court therefore did not decide whether Spencer’s jury-instruction arguments were legally correct.
Disposition
The court overruled Spencer’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety. It denied Spencer’s petition under § 2241 and denied his motion to expedite the proceedings. The court also ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The opinion states that the motion to expedite was moot because the petition was denied.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.