LONGNECK v. CARAWAY

Filing 11

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 11/27/2012.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EMIL LONGNECK,
Petitioner,

v.
J. F. CARAWAY,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:12-cv-0247-WTL-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Petitioner Longneck is confined within this District and seeks a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). He challenges the validity of his
conviction entered in the United States District Court for the District of Montana.
A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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); United States v. Bezy, 499 F.3d 668, 670 (7th Cir. 2007).
However, a petition challenging the conviction may be brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 only if § 2255 “would not . . . be[ ] adequate to test the legality of the
conviction and sentence.” Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 858 (7th Cir. 2004);
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
A remedy via § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the]
detention” when a legal theory that could not have been presented under § 2255
establishes the petitioner's actual innocence. In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.
1998). “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.” Id. at 611. 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).
“The essential point is that a prisoner is entitled to one unencumbered opportunity
to receive a decision on the merits.” Potts v. United States, 210 F.3d 770 (7th Cir.
2000).
Following Longneck’s direct appeal, he filed a motion for relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. That motion was denied on May 23, 2007. The claim in the habeas

petition was considered and rejected in the § 2255 action. That motion provided
Longneck with all the opportunity the law contemplates. His motion was denied. He
is not entitled to use § 2241 for another bite at the apple.
Longneck has sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 under circumstances
which do not permit or justify the use of that remedy. His petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is therefore denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now
issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11/27/2012
Date: _________________

_______________________________

Distribution:
Emil Longneck
No. 07741-046
United States Penitentiary
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana