Sorensen v. Barnes
- John Tunheim
- 0:19-cv-02268
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Sorensen v. Barnes, Chief Judge Tunheim denied Sorensen’s petition and IFP application and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Laura Sorensen’s challenge to her federal conviction was denied; her application to proceed without paying filing fees was also denied, and the action was dismissed without prejudice. Warden Nanette Barnes remained the respondent.
What happened
In Sorensen v. Barnes, Laura Sorensen, who was serving a 480-month sentence after pleading guilty to sex trafficking and transporting a person for illegal sexual activity, challenged her conviction. She argued that the victim’s age made the sex-trafficking conviction invalid and that she could use a petition under a different federal habeas statute because she could not file another sentence-challenge motion.
The court ruled that it lacked authority to hear the petition. Sorensen’s claim was the type that had to be raised on direct appeal or in a motion challenging her sentence, and the fact that she was barred from filing another such motion did not make that remedy legally inadequate. The court also said that, even if it had authority to consider the claim, the victim’s age did not matter because Sorensen was convicted under the statute’s force, fraud, or coercion provision, not its child-related provision.
Chief Judge Tunheim overruled Sorensen’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied the petition, denied her application to proceed without paying filing fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Sorensen v. Barnes · No. 0:19-cv-02268
- John Tunheim
- Jan. 23, 2020
Background
Laura Sorensen, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her federal conviction. She had pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia to sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and transporting an individual for illegal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2421. She was sentenced to 480 months. Sorensen did not challenge the transportation conviction in this proceeding.
Sorensen previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging her conviction and sentence. That motion was denied. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit later denied her request for authorization to file another § 2255 motion. Sorensen then filed this § 2241 petition, arguing that her victim was over 18 and that the victim’s age made her § 1591(a) conviction improper. She also applied to proceed without paying filing fees.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition for lack of jurisdiction and denying the filing-fee application. Sorensen objected.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed Sorensen’s objections independently. It held that her challenge was the type of claim that must be brought on direct appeal or through a § 2255 motion, rather than through § 2241. Section 2241 is available for this kind of challenge only when a § 2255 motion is legally inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the prisoner’s detention. The court explained that being barred from filing a successive § 2255 motion does not, by itself, make § 2255 legally inadequate or ineffective. Sorensen could have raised the claim in her first § 2255 motion, and a successive motion could have been authorized if she met the statutory standard for newly discovered evidence. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the § 2241 petition.
The court also addressed the substance of Sorensen’s argument in the alternative. Section 1591(a) contains separate provisions concerning sex trafficking involving a person under 18 and sex trafficking accomplished through force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion. Sorensen’s plea agreement identified her offense as sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. The stipulated facts described conduct that the court said supplied more than enough evidence of force, fraud, or coercion. Because the documents did not show that Sorensen was convicted under the child-related provision, the court concluded that the victim’s age had no bearing on the validity of the conviction.
Disposition
The court overruled Sorensen’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It denied Sorensen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, denied her application to proceed without paying filing fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court entered judgment accordingly.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.