Zaritz v. Eastern District of Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The petition for habeas corpus is dismissed. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 8/14/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Patrick W. Zaritz by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PATRICK W. ZARITZ,
CASE NO. 13-3105-RDR
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, a prisoner at the United States
Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, proceeds pro se and submitted the
Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri. In this action, he contends that
his sentence is incorrect and seeks adjustments to the sentence.
Generally, a federal prisoner may proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 to challenge the execution of a sentence rather than its
validity. Such a challenge is properly filed in the district of
confinement. In contrast, a prisoner’s challenge to the legality of
a conviction or sentence must be presented in an action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Such an action is filed in the district of conviction.
See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).
sentence, § 2241 is not the appropriate remedy. Rather, his claim
should be presented to the sentencing court.
The court notes that “[a] federal prisoner may file a § 2241
petition to challenge the legality of his conviction under the limited
circumstances provided in the so-called ‘saving clause’ of § 2255.”
Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011).
savings clause applies to extend the remedy under § 2241 only if the
petitioner shows “the remedy [provided] by [§ 2255] is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. §
The petition does not suggest any arguable basis for the
application of the savings clause. The petition shows the sentence
was imposed in late 2012, and it does not appear that petitioner has
used the remedy under § 2255. Petitioner does not assert the remedy
under § 2255 is either inadequate or ineffective.
Accordingly, the court will dismiss this matter. Petitioner must
present his challenge in the sentencing court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED the petition for habeas
corpus is dismissed.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 14th day of August, 2013, at Topeka, Kansas.
S/ Richard D. Rogers
RICHARD D. ROGERS
U.S. Senior District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?