Estabrook v. Warden
- Susan Nelson
- 0:19-cv-02845
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In Estabrook v. Warden, Judge Nelson dismissed Estabrook’s habeas petition without prejudice because this court lacked jurisdiction.
Alicia Kay Estabrook’s federal sentence challenge was dismissed without prejudice; Warden Nanette Barnes’s motion to dismiss Ground Three was granted.
What happened
Alicia Kay Estabrook, who was representing herself, challenged her federal sentence in Minnesota under a law used to contest how a sentence is carried out. She argued that her sentence was improperly increased based on prior convictions, that her lawyers were ineffective, and that the First Step Act allowed a sentence reduction.
The court ruled that the first, second, and fourth grounds challenged the original conviction or sentence and therefore had to be brought in the sentencing court, unless the usual procedure was inadequate or ineffective. For the third ground, the court concluded that only the court that imposed the sentence—the federal court in North Dakota—could consider a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.
Judge Nelson overruled Estabrook’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the third ground, and dismissed the amended petition in its entirety without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Estabrook v. Warden · No. 0:19-cv-02845
- Susan Nelson
- July 31, 2020
Background
Alicia Kay Estabrook pleaded guilty in federal court in North Dakota to possessing a firearm as a person previously convicted of a felony. The sentencing court imposed a 180-month prison sentence and dismissed a separate ammunition-possession count. Estabrook was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota, when she filed this petition without a lawyer.
Estabrook filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure generally used to challenge how a sentence is being carried out. She sought resentencing or a sentence modification based on four grounds. Grounds One, Two, and Four challenged the use of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s sentence enhancement, the treatment of her prior convictions as qualifying offenses, and her lawyers’ alleged failure to seek a lower sentence. Ground Three relied on the First Step Act of 2018 and argued that changes involving 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) made her 2011 sentence inappropriate.
Jurisdiction over Grounds One, Two, and Four
The court explained that challenges to the validity of a conviction or the sentence imposed generally must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the court that imposed the sentence. A prisoner may use § 2241 for such a challenge only if the § 2255 procedure is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention. If that exception does not apply, the court where the prisoner is incarcerated lacks jurisdiction.
The court agreed with the magistrate judge that Grounds One, Two, and Four directly challenged Estabrook’s sentence or conviction. Estabrook did not argue that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective, and the court noted that these arguments could have been raised—and had already been raised—in an earlier § 2255 proceeding. The possibility that another § 2255 motion would be barred as a second or successive motion did not make the § 2255 procedure inadequate or ineffective. The court therefore adopted the recommendation that these grounds be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Ground Three and the First Step Act
The court interpreted Ground Three as seeking a sentence reduction under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. That provision authorizes “a court that imposed a sentence for a covered offense” to impose a reduced sentence. Because the North Dakota federal court imposed Estabrook’s sentence, the Minnesota federal court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider this request.
The court dismissed Ground Three without prejudice. It expressly did not decide whether Ground Three satisfied any other procedural requirements or whether the request had merit.
Disposition
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Estabrook’s objections, affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granted Warden Barnes’s motion to dismiss Ground Three, and dismissed Estabrook’s amended petition in its entirety without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.