Beadles v. Holland
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Beadles'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. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 12/11/14.(SYD)cc: mailed to pro se filer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-182-DLB
TRAMAINE MONDALE BEADLES
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WARDEN J. C. HOLLAND
*** *** *** ***
Tramaine Mondale Beadles is an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney Beadles has filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. #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 Beadles’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).
On December 7, 2010, a federal grand jury sitting in Topeka, Kansas handed down
an indictment charging Beadles with bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
Following a two-day trial, a jury found Beadles guilty of the offense, and on May 31, 2012,
he was sentenced to a 210-month term of imprisonment. United States v. Beadles, No. 5:
10-CR-40118-JAR-1 (D. Kan. 2010).
The Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction and
sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Beadles, 508 F. App’x 807 (10th Cir. 2013).
On July 29, 2013, Beadles filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 in which argued, amongst other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to challenge his confession as involuntary and as the product of an improper
“seizure” of his confession without a warrant supported by probable cause. The trial court
denied that motion in an extensive opinion on May 27, 2014.
In his current habeas petition, Beadles asserts the same or similar claims to those
he asserted in his § 2255 motion: he argues that his confession was involuntary because
it was obtained through the use of an anonymous tipster whose testimony lacked sufficient
reliability to support the issuance of a warrant (Doc. #1-1, pp.2-3); the investigating officer
who used the anonymous tipster’s information to obtain his confession committed perjury
and a fraud upon the court (Doc. #1-1, pp. 3-5); the investigating officer “seized” his
recorded confession from him without an arrest warrant supported by probable cause (Doc.
#1-1, pp. 5-8); and his waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),
prior to his confession was invalid because he was falsely “imprisoned” at a private
residential reentry center operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (Doc. #1-1,
The Court will deny the petition because Beadles may not assert these claims in a
habeas corpus petition under section 2241. A federal prisoner must challenge the legality
of his conviction or sentence by filing a post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 with
the trial court. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998). The 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). Instead, a federal prisoner
may file a habeas corpus petition under § 2241 only to challenge a decision by prison
officials which affects the manner in which his sentence is being carried out, such as the
computation of sentence credits or parole eligibility. Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442,
447 (6th Cir. 2009).
Section 2255(e) provides a narrow exception to this rule, and permits a prisoner to
challenge the legality of his conviction through a § 2241 petition, where the remedy under
§ 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention.
circumstance where a prisoner may take advantage of this provision is where, after his or
her conviction has become final, the Supreme Court re-interprets the terms of the statute
the petitioner was convicted of violating in such a way that petitioner’s actions did not
violate the statute. Hayes v. Holland, 473 F. App’x 501, 501-02 (6th Cir. 2012) (“To date,
the savings clause has only been applied to claims of actual innocence based upon
Supreme Court decisions announcing new rules of statutory construction unavailable for
attack under section 2255.”). This exception does not apply where the prisoner failed to
seize an earlier opportunity to correct a fundamental defect in his conviction under preexisting law, or where he did assert his claim in a prior post-conviction motion under § 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).
All of Beadles’s claims are ordinary claims of trial error, and are thus matters which
could and should have been, and in this case were, asserted on direct appeal or by motion
under § 2255. Pointdexter v. Nash, 333 F.3d 372, 378 (2d Cir. 2003) (habeas relief under
§ 2241 is not available where “for example, a prior motion under § 2255 has been made
and a successive motion under that section is disallowed by the court of appeals under the
gatekeeping provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255.”) Because these claims, even if
meritorious, did not convict Beadles of conduct “that the law does not make criminal” in light
of a Supreme Court decision handed down after his direct appeal or first collateral attack
on his conviction, they are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding under § 2241.
Jameson v. Samuels, 555 F. App’x 743, 746 (10th Cir. 2014) (habeas petition under § 2241
is not the proper vehicle to assert claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance
of counsel, and lack of probable cause for warrant); Frees v. Maye, 441 F. App’x 285, 287
(5th Cir. 2011) (holding that a claim that a confession was inadequate is not cognizable
under § 2241); Boose v. Drew, No. 4:08-1954-CMC-TER, 2008 WL 2557438 (D.S.C. June
20, 2008) (“Petitioner’s claim about the involuntariness of his statements to law
enforcement is cognizable only under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . . .
Because “[t]he only claim that this court has recognized as cognizable under § 2241
is a claim of actual innocence based upon a new rule of law made retroactive by a
Supreme Court case, such as the claim raised in the case of Bailey v. United States, 516
U.S. 137, 116 S. Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995),” Townsend v. Davis, 83 F. App’x 728,
729 (6th Cir. 2003), Beadles’s petition must be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
Beadles’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1] is DENIED.
The Court will enter a judgment contemporaneously with this order.
This matter is STRICKEN from the docket.
This 11th day of December, 2014.
G:\DATA\ORDERS\ProSe\Beadles 14-182 MOO.wpd
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?