Marino v. Howard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VINCENT MICHAEL MARINO :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-0648

Petitioner :

(JUDGE MANNION)

v. :

WARDEN HOWARD :

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner, Vincent Michael Marino, an inmate confined in the

Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution, White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed

the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241.

(Doc. 1). Petitioner challenges his jury conviction and sentence imposed by

the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, for several

racketeering counts. Id. Specifically, Marino claims that the government

allegedly withheld exculpatory and impeachment evidence, which he

believes will show that government informants arranged for the murder of

two individuals. Id. A response (Doc. 6) and traverse (Doc. 19) having been

filed, the petition is ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court will dismiss Petitioner’s §2241 petition without prejudice for lack of

jurisdiction.

I. Background

On December 22, 1999, a jury in the United States District Court for

the District of Massachusetts (the “sentencing court”) convicted Marino of

three counts: racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§2 and 1962(c) (Count

One); racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) (Count

Two); and conspiring to murder thirteen people in aid of racketeering in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §1959 (Count Three). See, United States v. Carrozza,

et al., No. 4:97-cr-40009, Doc. No. 1078. On May 8, 2000, the sentencing

court sentenced Marino to a term of incarceration of 420 months followed by

three years of supervised release. Id. at 1151. The Court of Appeals for the

First Circuit affirmed the judgment. See United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11

(1st Cir. 2002).

Marino’s subsequent attempts to challenge his conviction were aptly

summarized in a recent decision dismissing one of his prior §2241 motions:

[After his conviction,] Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside

or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255 on June 30, 2003 in

the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Marino v. United States, Case No. 4:03-cv-40143, Doc. No. 1.1

1 Among the fifty grounds for relief asserted in numerous documents

he filed with the court, Marino claimed outrageous government misconduct,

stating that the government withheld exculpatory evidence and information

about its cooperating witnesses. Id.

- 2 -

The district court denied petitioner’s §2255 motion and the First

Circuit affirmed. Id. at Doc. Nos. 23, 34.

Additionally, petitioner has filed a number of petitions under

§2241 seeking habeas relief, including petitions in the Eastern

District of New York, the District of Columbia, the Western District

of Oklahoma, the Western District of Louisiana, as well as the

instant petition filed in this district. Marino v. United States, Case

Nos. 1:07-cv-12069 and 1:07-cv-12070, Doc. No. 1 (transferred

to D. Mass as successive §2255)2; Marino v. Martinez, Case No.

1:11-cv-1807, Doc. No. 1 (transferred to S.D. W. Va.); Marino v.

Kastner et al., 2010 WL 3522455, No. CIV10-664-R, (W.D. Okla.

Sept. 8, 2010); Marino v. Sherrod et al., 2012 WL 266855, Civil

Action No 1:10-CV-01656 (W.D. La. Jan. 30, 2012); Marino v.

Martinez, 2014 WL 5460613, Civil Action No. 1:12-00394

(S.D.W. Va. Oct. 27, 2014). None of these have been successful

and most courts have found that petitioner’s petitions actually

seek relief offered under § 2255, rather than § 2241.

Marino v. Masters, 2017 WL 891294, at *1 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 6, 2017), aff’d,

707 Fed. Appx. 794 (4th Cir. 2018). In addition to the foregoing, the United

States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently denied another

§2241 petition filed by Marino in Marino v. Ortiz, 2020 WL 3888124, at *1

(D.N.J. July 10, 2020), and on April 8, 2021, the United States District Court

for the Western District dismissed two of Marino’s §2241 petitions for lack of

2 The District of Massachusetts dismissed the petitions as successive

§2255 motions, discussed Marino’s extensive history of frivolous filings and

enjoined Marino from further filings without first obtaining permission to do

so. Id. The court also cautioned Marino that monetary sanctions would be

imposed if he failed to abide by its order. Id.

- 3 -

jurisdiction. See Marino v. Trate, 1:20-cv-86 (W.D. Pa.); Marino v. Trate,

1:19-cv-299.

Marino has also filed numerous applications with the First Circuit

seeking leave to file successive §2255 motions. The First Circuit also

rejected Marino’s claim that the government improperly granted immunity to

an informant and refused to provide his discovery of exculpatory and

impeachment material evidence because he failed to make a showing for a

successive §2255 motion. Marino v. United States, No. 15-2285 (1st Cir. Jan.

6, 2016). On November 4, 2019, the First Circuit rejected Marino’s motion to

file a successive §2255 motion having determined that Johnson v. United

States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204

(2018) did not apply to his convictions. Marino v. United States, No. 16-1708

(1st Cir., Nov. 4, 2019). Marino again petitioned the First Circuit for leave to

file a successive §2255 based on United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319

(2019). See, Marino v. United States, No. 20-1248 (1st Cir., May 19, 2020).

By Judgment dated May 19, 2020, the First Circuit denied the petition for

Marino’s failure to meet the gatekeeping requirements. Id.

II. Discussion

“[T]he usual avenue for federal prisoners seeking to challenge the

- 4 -

legality of their confinement” is a section 2255 motion. In re Dorsainvil, 119

F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997). A challenge to either the validity of a conviction

or to a sentence must be brought in the sentencing court by way of a section

2255 motion. See United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 n.2 (3d Cir.

1999). Here, Petitioner is clearly challenging his conviction and sentence.

Thus, his proper avenue of relief is a section 2255 motion filed in the district

court where he was convicted and sentenced. See section 2255 ¶5 (the

motion must be filed in “the court which sentenced him”).

A defendant can pursue a §2241 petition only when he shows that the

remedy under section 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the

legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. §2255; see also United States v. Brooks,

230 F.3d 643, 647 (3d Cir. 2000). A motion under §2255 is “‘inadequate or

ineffective’” only where it is established “‘that some limitation of scope or

procedure would prevent a 2255 proceeding from affording the prisoner a full

hearing and adjudication of his claim of wrongful detention.’” In re Dorsainvil,

119 F.3d at 251-52; Cagel v. Ciccone, 368 F.2d 183, 184 (8th Cir. 1966).

“Critically, §2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the

petitioner cannot satisfy §2255’s timeliness or other gatekeeping

requirements.” See Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988),

cert. denied, 488 U S. 982 (1988); Litterio v. Parker, 369 F.2d 395, 396 (3d

- 5 -

Cir. 1966) (per curiam). “It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not a personal

inability to utilize it, that is determinative....” Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722,

727 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986). If a petitioner

improperly challenges a federal conviction or sentence under §2241, the

petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Application of Galante, 437

F.2d at 1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (quoting United States ex rel.

Leguillou v. Davis, 212 F.2d 681, 684 (3d Cir. 1954)). Specifically, the Third

Circuit has “applied the safety valve where an intervening and retroactive

change in law had decriminalized the petitioner’s underlying conduct, but he

had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction and could not satisfy the

stringent standard for filing a second or successive §2255 motion.” Long v.

Fairton, 611 F. App’x 53, 55 (3d Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). If a petitioner

improperly challenges a federal conviction or sentence under §2241, the

petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Application of Galante, 437

F.2d at 1165.

However, as recognized in Dorsainvil, a federal prisoner can pursue

relief under §2241 only where a subsequent statutory interpretation reveals

that the prisoner’s conduct is not criminal so as to avoid a complete

miscarriage of justice. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251; see also Okereke v.

United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120-21 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding §2241 may not

- 6 -

be used to raise an Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) claim that

is barred by the procedural limitations imposed by the AEDPA); Brown v.

Mendez, 167 F. Supp. 2d 723, 726-27 (M.D. Pa. 2001). “Section 2241 is not

available for intervening changes in the sentencing law,” such as arguments

based on Apprendi. United State v. Kenney, 391 F. App’x 169, 172 (3d Cir.

2010). Sentencing claims “[do] not fall within the purview of the savings

clause.” Adderly v. Zickefoose, 459 F. App’x 73 (3d Cir. 2012); Pearson v.

Warden Canaan USP, 685 F. App’x 93, 96 (3d Cir. 2017) (“§2241 is not

available for an intervening change in the sentencing laws.”).

Here, Petitioner attempts to challenge his 1999 criminal conviction and

sentence, based on issues that have previously been raised, or could have

been raised in a §2255 motion. As discussed above, to proceed under

§2241, he must demonstrate that a §2255 motion “is inadequate or

ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. §2255(e). Petitioner

has not met this burden. As such, his claim does not fall within the purview

of the savings clause, as he has not demonstrated that an intervening

change in the law made his underlying conviction non-criminal and that he

had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction and could not satisfy the

stringent standard for filing a second or successive §2255 motion.

Marino’s lack of success in his direct appeal or his subsequent §2255

- 7 -

motions does not render §2255 inadequate or ineffective to address Marino’s

challenge to his conviction and sentence. “The remedy afforded under §2241

is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to that prescribed

under §2255.” Dusenbery v. Oddo, No. 17-2402, 2018 WL 372164, at *4

(M.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018). Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that

a §2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his

detention, permitting him to proceed under §2241, the Court will dismiss

Marino’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his underlying

conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2241, for lack of jurisdiction.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Marino’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Because Petitioner is not detained because of a process issued by a state

court and the petition is not brought pursuant to §2255, no action by this

Court with respect to a certificate of appealability is necessary.

An appropriate Order follows.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

Dated: September 23, 2021

20-0648-01

- 8 -