United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER DENYING PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
2241, CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
H. LIPMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
December 9, 2016, Petitioner Henry Richardson, Bureau of
Prisons ("BOP") register number 41002-039, an
inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Memphis,
Tennessee ("FCI Memphis"), filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
("2241 Petition"), seeking relief from his sentence
in light of the Supreme Court decision in Mathis v.
United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). (ECFNo. 1.) On
December 22, 2016, Petitioner filed an Amended § 2241
Petition. (ECF No. 4.) As explained below, Petitioner is not
entitled to the relief which he seeks. Therefore, his §
2241 Petition is DENIED.
§ 2241 Petition challenges a sentence he received in the
Eastern District of Michigan in 2008.(ECF No. 1 at 2.) He did not
appeal his sentence. Subsequently, Petitioner filed his
original Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Eastern District of
Michigan, which was denied. (Id. at 3.) Thereafter,
Petitioner filed an application with the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit for permission to file a second and
successive § 2255 Petition. (Id. at 3-4.)
Petitioner also filed a similar Motion to the one before this
Court in the Eastern District of Michigan on March 24, 2017,
which was dismissed by that Court on May 17, 2017.
Richardson v. Batts. No. 2:17-cv-10950-MAG-sdd (E.D.
current § 2241 Petition in this district challenges the
validity of his sentence based on Mathis v. United
States. 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016).
argues that he is entitled to relief under § 2241
because his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 "was
inadequate or ineffective." In making this argument, he
contends that he is "factually innocent" because he
is entitled to relief under Mathis. (ECF No. 1-1 at
13-14.) Typically, federal prisoners may challenge their
convictions or their sentence under § 2255 in the court
which imposed the sentence, and challenge the execution or
manner in which the sentence is served under § 2241 in
the court having jurisdiction over the prisoner's
custodian. This conclusion is based on an interpretation of
the "savings clause" to § 2255, which provides
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in [sic] 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). Here, Petitioner is attacking the
imposition of his sentence not the conditions of confinement,
and such habeas relief pursuant to § 2241 is not
available to him unless relief under § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective.
Sixth Circuit has construed the savings clause narrowly:
"Significantly, the § 2255 remedy is not considered
inadequate or ineffective simply because § 2255 relief
has already been denied, or because the petitioner is
procedurally barred from pursuing relief under § 2255,
or because the petitioner has been denied permission to file
a second or successive motion to vacate." Id.
(citations omitted). After the decision in Charles v.
Chandler, 180 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 1999), the Sixth
Circuit reemphasized the narrow scope of the savings clause:
The circumstances in which § 2255 is inadequate and
ineffective are narrow, for to construe § 2241 relief
much more liberally than § 2255 relief would defeat the
purpose of the restrictions Congress placed on the filing of
successive petitions for collateral relief. As we explained
in Charles, "[t]he remedy afforded under §
2241 is not an additional, alternative or supplemental remedy
to that prescribed under § 2255."
United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th
Cir. 2001) (quoting Charles. 180 F.3d at 758)
(additional citation omitted). Typically, a prisoner can only
circumvent the requirements for filing a second and
successive § 2255 and obtain relief under § 2241 if
he can show that he is "actually innocent" of the
crime for which he has been convicted. Martin v.
Perez, 319 F.3d 799, 804-05 (6th Cir. 2003);
Charles, 180 F.3d at 757.
argument is based only on a matter of statutory
interpretation as to whether a prior drug offense used to
enhance his sentence is "broader" than the generic
offense, relying on Mathis. Petitioner has not
established that his § 2255 remedy was "inadequate
or ineffective" or that he was "actually
innocent" of the offenses for which he pled guilty.
Therefore, Petitioner is not now entitled to seek relief
under § 2241, and, thus, "it appears from the
application that the applicant or person detained is not
entitled" to any relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
petition is DISMISSED. Judgment shall be