Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Teague

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

October 27, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY DAVID TEAGUE, Petitioner.

          ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

          ROBERT C. BRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Magistrate Judge William P. Lynch filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on August 25, 2017. (Doc. 130.)[1] The proposed findings notify Petitioner of his ability to file objections and that failure to do so waives appellate review. To date, Petitioner has not filed any objections, and there is nothing in the record indicating that the proposed findings were not delivered.

         Mr. Teague has filed several other motions that remain pending at this time: a Motion to Appoint Counsel and Obtain Transcripts, filed on August 18, 2016 (Doc. 89); a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition, filed on January 9, 2017 (Doc. 128); and a Motion to Recharacterize Action as Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ” filed on October 19, 2017[2] (Doc. 133).

         After a de novo review of the record and the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PFRD), the Court will (1) deny Mr. Teague's pending motions (Docs. 89, 128, 133), (2) adopt the Magistrate Judge's PFRD (Doc. 130), and (3) dismiss this case with prejudice.

         I. Background and PFRD

         The Court notes that there is a thorough summary of the procedural history of Mr. Teague's pre-trial, trial, and post-trial proceedings (including his motion to vacate pursuant to § 2255) in the July 24, 2007 Magistrate Judge's PFRD. (United States v. Teague, 07cv0326 RB/LCS, PFRD (D.N.M. July 24, 2007).) The Court incorporates the summary here by reference.

         In his 2016 Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, Mr. Teague contends that his conviction should be overturned because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Doc. 82.) After reviewing the record and the relevant law, the magistrate judge concluded that the Court should deny Mr. Teague's Petition, because he “has not exercised due diligence in raising the issue and the issue is therefore waived.” (Doc. 130 at 5.)

         Pursuant to Rule 72(b) the parties had 14 days to file objections after Judge Lynch filed the PFRD. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). “Objections must be timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” Neihart v. United States, No. CV 16-708 WJ/CG, 2017 WL 3726765, at *2 (D.N.M. Aug. 28, 2017) (citing United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., with Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)). “Additionally, issues ‘raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived.'” Id. (quoting Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted); citing United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) (“In this circuit, theories raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's report are deemed waived.”) (quoting Marshall, 75 F.3d at 1426)).

         II. Motion to Recharacterize

         Mr. Teague did not file objections within the 14-day period. Instead, he filed a “Motion to Recharacterize Action as Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (Doc. 133.) It is clear to the Court that Petitioner's Motion is simply a veiled attempt to circumvent the Magistrate Judge's PFRD. Consequently, the Court will construe this Motion as objections to the PFRD and will deny the Motion. Even if the Court construed the Motion as one pursuant to § 2241, the Court would dismiss it without prejudice on the grounds that it lacks jurisdiction, because Petitioner has not shown that a § 2255 motion is inadequate.

         A. Construed as Objections

         “As explained, theories raised for the first time in objections are deemed waived.” Neihart, 2017 WL 3726765, at *4 (citing Marshall, 75 F.3d at 1426; Garfinkle, 261 F.3d at 1031). In his new Motion, Mr. Teague asks the Court to treat his Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 133.) The only law he cites is on § 2255(e)'s savings clause. (Id. (citing Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 377 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding that “§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the prisoner's] detention, ” so the prisoner was “entitled to raise his claim of actual innocence in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus”).) The Tenth Circuit has explained:

Following AEDPA's enactment, federal prisoners who are barred from bringing second or successive § 2255 motions may still be able to petition for habeas relief under § 2241 through the mechanism of § 2255(e)'s savings clause. “To fall within the ambit of [the] savings clause and so proceed to § 2241, a prisoner must show that ‘the remedy by motion [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.'” Prost [v. Anderson], 636 F.3d [578, ] 581 (10th Cir. 2011)] (second alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)). Section 2255, however, has been found to be “inadequate or ineffective” only in “extremely limited circumstances.” Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir. 1999); see Brace [v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167');">634 F.3d 1167, ] 1169 [(10th Cir. 2011)] (stating that “§ 2255 will rarely be an inadequate or ineffective remedy to challenge a conviction”). In Prost, we set forth our test: we ask “whether a petitioner's argument challenging the legality of his detention could have been tested in an initial § 2255 motion. If the answer is yes, then the petitioner may not resort to the savings clause and § 2241.” 636 F.3d at 584.

Abernathy v. Wandes, 713 F.3d 538, 547 (10th Cir. 2013). Petitioner carries the “burden to show that he meets § 2255(e)'s savings clause.” Id. (citing Prost, 636 F.3d at 584). Mr. Teague makes no effort to show he meets the savings clause. Nor does the Court find he would be able to make such a showing. Petitioner's argument regarding ineffective ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.