Murphy v. USA
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Murphy's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is DENIED; 2) This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket; 3) A corresponding Judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 6/8/2018.(RC)cc: COR, paper copy of Order to pro se petitioner via U.S. Mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
(at London)
DAMIAN ANTONIO MURPHY,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 6:18-CV-168-CHB
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
*** *** *** ***
Damian Antonio Murphy is an inmate at the United States Penitentiary – McCreary in Pine
Knot, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Murphy filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [R. 1] For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Murphy’s
petition.
In 2007, a jury convicted Murphy of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute
cocaine and hydromorphone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C), and possession
of counterfeit currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. See United States v. Murphy, No. 1:06cr-062 (W.D. Va. 2007). The trial court then sentenced Murphy to a total term of 262 months in
prison. See Id. at R. 182. Murphy filed a direct appeal, but the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. See United States v. Murphy, 552 F.3d
405 (4th Cir. 2009). Murphy then unsuccessfully sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Murphy has now filed a § 2241 petition with this Court. [R. 1] Murphy argues, among
other things, that (1) his “first attorney was purposely ineffective because she helped both
prosecutors create a drug conspiracy from baking soda” [R. 1, at 5], and (2) he is “factually
-1-
innocent of a drug conspiracy and has suffered a grave miscarriage of justice” at least in part
because, “[i]n the case at hand, two assistant U.S. Attorneys built a case from baking soda.” [R. 1
at 7-9] Ultimately, Murphy asks the Court “to dismiss all counts of his indictment” because,
according to Murphy, “he is actually innocent of a drug conspiracy and his grand jury transcripts,
indictment, affidavit, criminal complaint, and warrant has been backdated to cover up this
miscarriage by way of prosecutorial misconduct.” [R. 1, at 1]
Murphy’s § 2241 petition, however, constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on his
underlying convictions and sentence. While a federal prisoner may challenge the legality of his
convictions and sentence in a § 2255 motion, he generally may not do so in a § 2241 petition. See
United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001) (explaining the distinction between
a § 2255 motion and a § 2241 petition). After all, a § 2241 petition is usually only a vehicle 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.
See Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009). Simply put, Murphy cannot use a
§ 2241 petition as a way of challenging his underlying convictions and sentence.
To be sure, there are limited exceptions under which federal prisoners have been permitted
to challenge the validity of their convictions or sentences in a § 2241 petition. However, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has explained that a prisoner can only proceed in this
manner if he can demonstrate that an intervening change in statutory law establishes his actual
innocence, see Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 307-08 (6th Cir. 2012), or shows that his sentence
was improperly enhanced, see Hill v. Masters, 836 F.3d 591, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2016). In this case,
Murphy has not made such a showing. Instead, Murphy is simply trying to litigate arguments that
-2-
he either made or could have made on direct appeal and in his § 2255 motion. That is not proper
in a § 2241 petition.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Murphy’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is
DENIED.
2. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
3. A corresponding Judgment will be entered this date.
This the 8th day of June, 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?