Harrison v. Quintana

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) 1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 2) Court will enter a judgment w this order. 3) Matter is STRICKEN from the docket. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/17/2014.(SCD)cc: Pro Se Petitioner(via US Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CHARLES RANDALL HARRISON,
Petitioner,

Civil Action No. 5: 14-132-KKC

V.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, WARDEN,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Respondent.

*** *** *** ***
Charles Randall Harrison is an inmate confined at the Federal Medical Center in
Lexington, Kentucky. Proceeding without counsel, Harrison has filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [R. 1]
The Court conducts an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2243;
Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). The Court
must deny the petition “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)). The Court evaluates
Harrison’s petition under a more lenient standard because he is not represented by an attorney.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003).
At this stage, the Court accepts the petitioner’s factual allegations as true, and his legal claims
are liberally construed in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
(2007).

1

On November 7, 1996, Harrison was convicted in the Northern District of Florida of
conspiracy to possess with intent to sell methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and
possession with intent to sell methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). Harrison was
sentenced to a 420-month term of incarceration on January 23, 1997. One of several motions by
Harrison to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was successful, resulting in his
sentence being reduced to a 360-month term on September 27, 2001. Since that date, Harrison
has filed dozens of motions in his criminal case seeking relief from his conviction and sentence,
albeit without success. United States v. Harrison, No. 3: 96-CR-57-RV-MD-3 (N.D. Fla. 1996).
Harrison has also filed a number of petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, each challenging his conviction on various grounds, including the sufficiency of
the indictment, prosecutorial misconduct, improper jury instructions, denial of his right to a jury
trial, and the purported failure of the prosecutors to take the oath of office. Those petitions have
been denied as procedurally improper, because the claims asserted were not claims of “actual
innocence” to fall within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s savings clause. Harrison v. Winn,
No. 4:05-40021-MLW (D. Mass. 2005), aff’d, No. 07-2210 (1st Cir. 2008); Harrison v. Sabol,
No. 4:07-CV-40121-MLW (D. Mass. 2007).
In his present petition, Harrison alleges that both the DEA agent who investigated the
drug trafficking activity which resulted in his conviction and the prosecuting United States
Attorney committed perjury while testifying before the grand jury, during trial, and in postconviction proceedings by stating that the drugs in question were methamphetamine rather than
amphetamine. [R. 1, pp. 4-7] Harrison further alleges that documents generated during that
investigation were not provided to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83,
87 (1963). [R. 1, pp. 7-11]
2

However, these are not the types of claims which Harrison may pursue in a habeas corpus
petition filed pursuant to Section 2241. A § 2241 petition is reserved for challenges to actions
taken by prison officials that affect the manner in which the prisoner’s sentence is being carried
out, such as computing sentence credits or determining parole eligibility. Terrell v. United
States, 564 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009). To challenge the legality of a federal conviction or
sentence, a prisoner must file a motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
court that convicted and sentenced him. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir.
2003).
Harrison’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and allegations of prosecutorial
misconduct and Brady violations are quintessential claims of trial error which a defendant can
and must pursue on direct appeal or in a motion under § 2255. Graham v. Sanders, 77 F. App’x
799, 801 (6th Cir. 2003) (challenge to sufficiency of evidence to support conspiracy conviction
could be raised on appeal and under Section 2255, rendering relief under Section 2241
unavailable); Posival v. Driver, 207 F. App’x 365, 366 (5th Cir. 2006) (claims challenging
sufficiency of sentencing enhancement and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel should be
raised in a Section 2255 motion, and may not be pursued under the savings clause); United
States v. Neder, 451 F. App’x 842, 844 (11th Cir. 2012) (Brady, Giglio, and prosecutorial
misconduct claims do not fall within the scope of the savings clause). A prisoner may not use a
habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for this purpose, as it does not constitute an
additional or alternative remedy to the one available under § 2255. Hernandez v. Lamanna, 16
F. App’x 317, 320 (6th Cir. 2001). Nor may a petitioner invoke the savings clause to pursue
habeas relief under § 2241 where he previously asserted his claim in a motion under Section

3

2255 and was denied relief. Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Prevatte, 300 F.3d 792, 800 (7th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Harrison’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1] is DENIED.

2.

The Court will enter a judgment contemporaneously with this order.

3.

This matter is STRICKEN from the docket.

Entered June 17, 2014.

4