Spencer v. Watson
- Susan Nelson
- 0:17-cv-03999
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Spencer v. Watson, Judge Nelson dismissed Spencer’s petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and imposed filing restrictions.
Antwoyn Spencer, whose petition was dismissed without prejudice and whose ability to file future motions and successive Section 2255 motions was restricted; the District of Minnesota clerk’s office was directed not to file or respond to his submissions except as the court directs.
What happened
In Spencer v. Watson, Antwoyn Spencer challenged the validity of his federal conviction and sentence through a petition filed under a different federal habeas procedure. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because the petition was an unauthorized repeat challenge that belonged in a motion filed under Section 2255.
The district court overruled Spencer’s objections and adopted the recommendation as modified. It dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson also barred Spencer from filing another Section 2255 motion without advance permission from the Eighth Circuit. Future materials from Spencer may not be filed or answered unless the judge assigned to the matter approves them, and the clerk was directed not to file or respond to them except as the court directs.
The detailed version
- Spencer v. Watson · No. 0:17-cv-03999
- Susan Nelson
- Jan. 22, 2019
Background
Antwoyn Spencer, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition challenging his federal conviction and sentence. He had previously been convicted in the District of Minnesota of cocaine-distribution and money-laundering offenses and sentenced to 324 months in prison. The opinion states that his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Eighth Circuit on January 21, 2010, and that his earlier motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied on April 15, 2011.
Spencer later filed repeated motions and petitions challenging the same conviction and sentence. Courts dismissed those filings for lack of jurisdiction and imposed or warned about filing restrictions. The District of Minnesota had previously warned him that he needed advance authorization from the Eighth Circuit before filing a successive Section 2255 motion. He then filed the present petition raising identical claims shortly after another petition had been dismissed.
Court’s Analysis
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and certifying any appeal as not taken in good faith. Spencer objected, generally asserting that the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2241.
After conducting the required independent review, the district court agreed that the petition was not an appropriate vehicle for challenging the validity of Spencer’s conviction or sentence. Those challenges generally had to be brought in the sentencing court through a motion under Section 2255. The need to obtain Eighth Circuit authorization for another Section 2255 motion did not make that procedure inadequate or ineffective. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s Report and Recommendation as modified, overruled Spencer’s objections, and dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It certified that any appeal from the dismissal was not taken in good faith.
The court also reimposed filing restrictions. Spencer may not file successive Section 2255 motions without first obtaining authorization from the Eighth Circuit. He may not file further motions without approval from the judge assigned to the case, and the clerk may not file or respond to anything he submits except as expressly directed by the court. Judgment was ordered entered accordingly.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.