McBride v. Kizziah

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. McBride'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 Court's docket. 3. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 9/26/2017. (TDA) cc: McBride via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION at PIKEVILLE
DYTANIEL L. MCBRIDE,
Petitioner,

Civil Action No. 7:17-147-KKC

v.
GREGORY KIZZIAH, Warden,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Respondent.
Dytaniel L. McBride is an inmate at the United States Penitentiary – Big Sandy in Inez,
Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, McBride has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he challenges the validity of his underlying federal
convictions and sentence. [R. 1]. Among other things, McBride claims that (1) federal prosecutors
failed to disclose exculpatory evidence; (2) law enforcement officials obtained evidence pursuant
to an unconstitutional search and seizure; (3) his initial arrest was unlawful; and (4) his conviction
was “obtained by a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination and [the] use of [a] coerced
confession.” [R. 1 at 6-8]. McBride asks this Court to vacate at least some of his convictions and
set aside what he calls his “illegal sentence.” [R. 1 at 8].
McBride’s § 2241 petition, however, is an impermissible collateral attack on his
convictions and sentence. That is because while a federal prisoner may challenge the legality of
his convictions or sentence in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 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, 546 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009).

Simply put, McBride cannot use a § 2241 petition as a way of challenging his convictions and
sentence.
It is true that, under certain limited circumstances, “a federal prisoner may also challenge
the validity of his conviction or sentence under § 2241.” Bess v. Walton, 468 F. App’x 588, 589
(6th Cir. 2012). However, the Sixth Circuit has explained that this is only true when the prisoner
is trying to rely on an intervening change in the law to establish his actual innocence, see Wooten
v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 307-08 (6th Cir. 2012), or challenge a sentence enhancement. See Hill
v. Masters, 836 F.3d 591, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2016). And, in this case, it does not appear from
McBride’s petition that he is relying on an intervening change in the law to attack his convictions
or sentence or that he otherwise meets the requirements set forth in either the Wooten or Hill cases.
Rather, it appears that McBride is trying to litigate substantive claims that he either could have
made in his previously denied § 2255 motion or claims that he perhaps could still assert in a second
or successive § 2255 petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Either way, McBride’s claims are not properly brought in a § 2241 petition with this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. McBride’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.
Dated September 26, 2017.

2