Michael W. Johnson v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11808
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cv-00042-WTH-PRL
MICHAEL W. JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP I,
Respondent - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 30, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Johnson appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. We apply our recent decision in McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill
Industries-Suncoast, Inc., No. 12-14989 (11th Cir. Mar. 14, 2017) (en banc), to his
Case: 15-11808 Date Filed: 03/30/2017 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
appeal. Because Johnson had an opportunity to challenge his sentence
enhancement in a motion to vacate, we affirm the dismissal of his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.
Johnson is a federal prisoner sentenced in the Western District of Missouri.
Johnson challenged the enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career
Criminal Act in his first motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court
denied his motion on the merits and the Eighth Circuit denied a certificate of
appealability. During the course of his collateral proceedings, the Supreme Court
decided Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), and Johnson was transferred
to a facility in the Middle District of Florida. Johnson filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, against the warden of his prison. He argued that
in the light of Begay, the motion to vacate was “inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The district court dismissed
Johnson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus because Johnson did not meet the
requirements of Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253, 1262
(11th Cir. 2013).
This Court recently overruled its precedent in Bryant and held that “a change
in caselaw does not make a motion to vacate a prisoner’s sentence ‘inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’” McCarthan, slip op. at 2 (quoting
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)). Because Johnson had “an opportunity to challenge his
Case: 15-11808 Date Filed: 03/30/2017 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
sentence enhancement,” and in fact did so, “his remedy was not inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his sentence, regardless of any later change in
caselaw.” Id. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Johnson’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus.
Case: 15-11808 Date Filed: 03/30/2017 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --