CONWAY v. MARBERRY

Filing 14

ENTRY discussing petition for writ of habeas corpus; no feature about his claim suggesting that a remedy via § 2255 has been inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention ; petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; judgment shall now issue. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/20/2010.(VS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA JERRY LEE CONWAY, Petitioner, vs. HELEN J. MARBERRY, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:09-cv-394-WTL-DML

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner Jerry Lee Conway is confined within this District serving the executed portion of a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 17, 2009. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) based on his contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter his conviction. The trial court lost jurisdiction, according to Conway, because of the nonobservance by prosecuting authorities and the courts of the anti-shuttling provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the presumptive means by which a federal prisoner can challenge his conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343 (1974). According to § 2255(e), however, a federal prisoner may use § 2241 to contest his conviction or sentence only when "the remedy by motion [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." "A procedure for post conviction relief can fairly be termed inadequate when it is so configured as to deny a convicted defendant any opportunity for judicial rectification of so fundamental a defect in his conviction as having been imprisoned for a nonexistent offense." In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 1998). It is the inmate's burden to show that a § 2241 remedy is the proper one. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999). Despite Conway being physically present in this District, he is not entitled to proceed with his habeas claim. See Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2001) (§ 2241 relief not available because petitioner could have raised claim on direct appeal or in prior § 2255 attack, thus § 2255 remedy not inadequate or ineffective); Longbehn v. United States, 169 F.3d 1082, 1083 (7th Cir. 1999) (same). There is no feature about his claim suggesting that a remedy via § 2255 has been inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________ Date: 05/20/2010 Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana