United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James Humphreys has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Humphreys is
currently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Facility
in Milan, Michigan. He argues that pursuant to Mathis v.
United States, - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), his
prior aggravated battery conviction no longer qualifies as a
violent offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The Court
finds that the petition was not properly filed under §
2241. Therefore, the Court will DENY the petition.
was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm
after a jury trial in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. See United
States v. Humphreys, 468 F.3d 1051, 1052 (7th Cir.
2007). The district court found that Humphreys had three
prior felony convictions for violent crimes and sentenced him
to fifteen and one-half years of imprisonment under the ACCA,
and five years of supervised release. Id. Humphreys
appealed his conviction and sentence, which the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. The Seventh
Circuit also denied rehearing and rehearing en banc
on January 9, 2007. Id.
January 4, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the court denied. See United
States v. Humphreys, No. 08-cv-88 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6,
2008). On August 8, 2011, Humphreys filed a petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, contending that the armed career criminal
offender provision was no longer applicable to his case. The
district court held that the petition should have been filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v.
Humphreys, No. 11-cv-5350, 2012 WL 1080526, *1-2 (N.D.
Ill. Aug. 17, 2012). In dicta, the court noted that even if
the petition had been filed under § 2255, the court
would have denied it as untimely. Id.
April 9, 2012, Humphreys filed a petition for habeas relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas. According to Humphreys, he
was entitled to a reduction in his sentence because the ACCA
no longer applied where his state convictions had expired and
his civil rights were restored. The district court held that
the petition was not properly filed under § 2241.
v. Maye, No. 12-3088 (D. Kan. June 7, 2012).
September 2012, Petitioner filed another motion for relief
under § 2255. Again, he asserted that the ACCA no longer
applied to him because his state convictions had expired and
his civil rights had been restored. The district court found
that the motion was not timely filed under § 2255.
United States v. Humphreys, No. 12-cv-07689 (N.D.
Ill. Jan. 18, 2013).
September 2015, Humphreys asked the Seventh Circuit to
authorize the district court to consider a successive
petition under § 2255. He alleged that Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), rendered his
sentencing enhancement illegal. The Seventh Circuit denied
the application, finding that Humphreys' aggravated
battery conviction involved the use of force, and that his
armed robbery conviction had as an element the use or
threatened use of force. Humphreys v. United States,
No. 15-2948 (7th Cir. Oct. 5, 2015).
before this Court is Humphreys' habeas corpus petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. No. 1. Relying on
Mathis v. United States, - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243
(2016), he argues that one of the felonies supporting his
enhancement under ACCA no longer constitutes a predicate
contends that he was improperly sentenced as a career
offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Specifically, he argues that, based on Mathis v. United
States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), he is actually innocent
of the career offender enhancement. He alleges that one of
the three offenses used for his career offender
designation-an Illinois state conviction for aggravated
battery-no longer constitutes a predicate crime of violence
prisoner generally can challenge his federal conviction or
sentence only through a § 2255 motion. See Hill v.
Masters, 836 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2016). A writ of
habeas corpus under § 2255 requires the petitioner to
file his challenge in the same district that imposed the
criminal sentence on him. See 28 U.S.C. §
2255(a). A petition challenging “the manner or
execution of a sentence is appropriate under ...