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.

Talada v. Cole

United States District Court, W.D. New York

November 9, 2017

CHAD TALADA, Petitioner,
v.
DAVID V. COLE, SHERIFF, STEUBEN COUNTY JAIL, Respondent.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         This is an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which Petitioner seeks an order vacating his conviction and sentence pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (“SORNA”). Because the Court finds that Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements for a § 2241 challenge, the motion is denied and this action is dismissed.

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner Chad Talada (“Petitioner”) is a prisoner at the Steuben County Jail in Bath, New York. Petitioner was convicted of Attempted Sexual Abuse in the First Degree in New York in 2002 and was required to register as a sex offender. On December 9, 2008, Petitioner was charged in a one-count indictment in the Southern District of West Virginia for failing to register as a sex offender after having moved from New York to West Virginia sometime after April 18, 2007, and having been employed in West Virginia beginning on June 26, 2007. In 2009, Petitioner entered into a plea agreement with the government and pled guilty to the indictment. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner was sentenced to 24 months in prison and 70 months of supervised release.

         Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Petitioner contended that the United States Attorney General's issuance of the Interim Rule that made the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (“SORNA”) retroactive to existing sex offenders was improperly promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Petitioner's conviction was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis of precedent stemming from United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009), which affirmed the Attorney General's promulgation of the Interim Rule as valid under the APA. On August 31, 2010, Petitioner appealed for a Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's Writ of Certiorari on December 13, 2010. Petitioner subsequently failed to bring a challenge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations or December 12, 2011.Petitioner completed his sentence of imprisonment on March 23, 2010. The Western District of New York received a transfer of jurisdiction for Petitioner's supervised release on June 10, 2010.

         On September 3, 2015, in the Western District of New York, Petitioner pled guilty to charges of Knowing Receipt of Child Pornography. On March 21, 2016, Petitioner filed the subject petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting a writ of habeas corpus to vacate his prior SORNA conviction. Vacating the SORNA conviction can have implications regarding Petitioner's pending sentence in the case regarding receipt of child pornography.

         DISCUSSION

         Petitioner brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) & (c)(3), which authorizes a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus whenever a petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Petitioner's motion is precarious under Second Circuit precedent, which generally requires petitioners to use § 2255 to challenge convictions and sentences.

A motion pursuant to § 2241 generally challenges the execution of a federal prisoner's sentence, including such matters as the administration of parole, computation of a prisoner's sentence by prison officials, prison disciplinary actions, prison transfers, type of detention and prison conditions… In contrast, § 2255 is generally the proper vehicle for a federal prisoner's challenge to his conviction and sentence, as it encompasses claims that “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ¶ 1

Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2001). Petitioner failed to challenge his conviction and sentence using § 2255 in the court where he was sentenced in a timely fashion upon the Supreme Court's denial of a writ of certiorari in 2010. The statute of limitations in § 2255 mandates that any challenge to the conviction must occur within one year upon the finality of the judgment of the conviction, which means that Petitioner had until December 12, 2011, to file the appropriate challenge. Therefore, Petitioner is out of time to file a § 2255 challenge to his conviction.

         Despite the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Court may permit § 2241 challenges in certain extraordinary conditions as described in the “savings clause” of § 2255(e). The savings clause provides that:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Petitioner contends that this clause permits the Court to rule on the merits of the § 2241 challenge. In the Second Circuit, governing precedent allows the savings clause of § 2255 to be invoked to allow § 2241 relief in “cases involving prisoners who (1) can prove actual innocence on the existing record, and (2) ‘could not have effectively raised [their] claim[s] of innocence at an earlier ...


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.