Schmutzler v. Quintana
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) 1 Petition is DENIED w respect to all issues raised in this proceeding. 2) Action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 5/10/2018.(SCD)cc: Pro Se Petitioner via US Mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
JEFFREY B. SCHMUTZLER,
Petitioner,
V.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent.
***
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 5: 18-231-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
***
***
Inmate Jeffrey B. Schmutzler has filed a pro se petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
[R. 1]
This
matter is before the Court to conduct the screening required by 28
U.S.C. § 2243.
Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F.
App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011).
In
August
2014,
Schmutzler
was
sentenced
to
108
months
imprisonment for the receipt and distribution of child pornography
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2).
The Third Circuit
affirmed on direct appeal, and the trial court has denied dozens
of motions filed by Schmutzler seeking to vacate his conviction,
reduce his sentence, and obtain other forms of ancillary relief.
United States v. Schmutzler, No. 1: 13-CR-65-WWC-1 (M.D. Penn.
2013).
In one of those post-judgment filings, Schmutzler argued that
the federal government lacked the authority to criminalize his
conduct on the theory that such authority was reserved to the
several States.
that
in
The trial court rejected that argument, noting
enacting
Section
2252A(a)(2)
Congress
was
validly
exercising its authority to criminalize conduct with an effect on
interstate commerce.
[R. 107 therein at 6 (citing United States
v. MacEwan, 445 F. 3d 237, 245 (3d Cir. 2006)]
has reached the same conclusion.
The Sixth Circuit
United States v. Andrews, 383 F.
3d 374 (6th Cir. 2004).
Schmutzler repeats that argument here, contending that there
is no federal jurisdiction over purely intra-state conduct.
He
also argues that his federal sentence constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
[R. 1 at 2, 6-
8]
The Court must deny Schmutzler’s petition because he may not
pursue these claims in a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241.
A federal prisoner must challenge his federal
conviction or sentence by filing a motion for post-conviction
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the court that convicted and
sentenced him.
2003).
Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir.
A habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may
not be used for this purpose because it does not function as an
additional or alternative remedy to the one available under § 2255.
Hernandez v. Lamanna, 16 F. App’x 317, 320 (6th Cir. 2001).
The only exception to this rule is where after the defendant’s
conviction becomes final, the Supreme Court re-interprets the
2
substantive
terms
of
the
criminal
statute
under
which
the
petitioner was convicted in a manner that establishes that his
conduct did not violate the statute.
303, 307-08 (6th Cir. 2012).
Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d
Schmutzler’s challenges to the
federal government’s authority to criminalize his conduct and to
the
severity
of
his
sentence
are
claims
that
he
could,
and
therefore must, have pursued on direct appeal and in an initial
motion under Section 2255.
Jacobs v. Miles, 104 F. App’x 431 (5th
Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of § 2241 petition challenging
federal jurisdiction over offense conduct under United States v.
Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)); Carr v. Holder, 154 F. App’x 95, 9697 (11th Cir. 2005) (same).
Because § 2255 is not an inadequate
and ineffective remedy to assert his claims, his § 2241 petition
must be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.
The petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by
Jeffrey B. Schmutzler [R. 1] is DENIED with respect to all issues
raised in this proceeding.
2.
This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
This the 10th day of May, 2018.
3
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?