United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
WILLIAM W. CALDWELL, District Judge.
The pro se petitioner, You Zhong Peng, a prisoner confined at the United States penitentiary in Canaan, Pennsylvania, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Peng challenges his 1997 convictions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for conspiracy to engage in hostage taking, one count of hostage taking in which death resulted, two additional counts of hostage taking and two counts of using a firearm in connection with a crime of violence.
In his Petition, Peng presents three claims: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to present the expert testimony of a psychiatrist as to Petitioner's mental condition which made him easily dominated by other members of his group; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing Peng's psychiatrist to testify to his mental illness and brain disorder; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced Petitioner the same day he was convicted and without the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report being completed.
We conclude Peng has failed to show that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. His § 2241 petition will therefore be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254 (West Supp.).
On September 28, 1995, Peng, along with four other individuals who were all members of an Asian gang called the "Plum Blossom Boys, " were indicted in the Eastern District of New York for various hostage and firearms offenses.
On April 3, 1997, following a jury trial, Peng was convicted of conspiracy to engage in hostage taking, one count of hostage taking in which death resulted, two additional counts of hostage taking and two counts of using a firearm in connection with a crime of violence. On that same day the district court sentenced Peng to a mandatory term of life imprisonment on the hostage-takings counts (mandatory because one of the hostage takings resulted in death) and to a consecutive twenty-five-year term of imprisonment on the firearms offenses.
On direct appeal, Peng challenged the district court's refusal to grant post-trial neurological and psychiatric examinations and an evidentiary hearing based on Peng's Rule 33 motion for a new trial. His conviction was affirmed on appeal on December 15, 1997. See United States v. Fu Xin Chen , 131 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1997).
In December 1998, Peng filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the lower court's refusal to appoint a psychiatrist during trial as an expert for the defense and making a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel. On July 13, 1999, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied Peng's motion. Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability was denied on October 29, 1999. On May 3, 2000, the Second Circuit denied Peng's motion for a certificate of appealability.
On April 7, 2003, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). In his motion, Peng asserted that he had obtained newly discovered evidence: identical affidavits of co-defendants, sworn to on April 18, 2002, that supported the duress defense he presented at trial and a claim of actual innocence. On January 31, 2005, the trial court denied Peng's motion, noting that if Petitioner wished to pursue postconviction relief a second time he had to seek permission from the Court of Appeals.
Undeterred, in January 2005, Peng then filed a motion for a modification of his sentence. On May 31, 2006, the court denied the motion. Peng then filed a notice of appeal. On June 1, 2007, the Second Circuit denied his appeal. Peng filed the instant section 2241 petition on July 6, 2014.
"A motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the means to collaterally challenge a federal conviction or sentence, " Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009), and the motion must be presented to the sentencing court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) ...