Deering v. Perry
Filing
19
ORDER denying 11 Petitioner's Motion to Proceed Under Federal Statute 28 USC § 2241 by. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JUWAN DEERING,
Case Number: 2:11-CV-10320
Petitioner,
HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN
v.
MITCH PERRY,
Respondent.
/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO PROCEED
UNDER FEDERAL STATUTE 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Petitioner Juwan Deering has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed Under
Federal Statute 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner is a state prisoner challenging a state court criminal conviction. He
properly filed his petition under § 2254, which permits state prisoners to collaterally
attack either the imposition or execution of their sentences. Petitioner now asks that his
petition be considered under § 2241, rather than § 2254 because he believes that
consideration under § 2241 would allow him to evade § 2254's exhaustion requirement.
He also seeks consideration under § 2241 because, he argues, the Court would not be
required to afford the state court’s factual determinations a presumption of correctness as
required under § 2254.
Section 2241 authorizes a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus if a
petitioner establishes that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Sixth Circuit has suggested
that there is a “serious question whether a state prisoner may proceed under § 2241,”
Allen v. White, 185 Fed. App’x 487, 490 (6th Cir.2006), but, has permitted state prisoners
to proceed under § 2241, subject to the restrictions imposed by § 2254. See Greene v.
Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 265 F.3d 369, 371 (6th Cir. 2001). Regardless of whether the
petition is deemed filed under § 2254 or § 2241, Petitioner must satisfy the exhaustion
requirement. See Fazzini v. Northeast Ohio Corr. Ctr., 473 F.3d 229, 237 (6th Cir. 2006).
Additionally, when a petition challenges a state court conviction, then the standards set
forth in § 2254, including the presumption of correctness afforded state court factual
findings, apply regardless of how the petitioner characterizes the petition. Rittenberry v.
Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 333 (6th Cir. 2006) (“When a [state] prisoner begins in the district
court, § 2254 and all associated statutory requirements . . . apply no matter what statutory
label the prisoner has given the case.”). Because § 2254's standards apply to the petition,
and would apply whether Petitioner re-labeled the petition as filed under § 2241, it serves
no purpose to re-label the petition as one filed under § 2241 based upon Petitioner’s
mistaken belief that a different standard would then apply.
2
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed Under Federal
Statute 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: March 8, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on March 8, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager
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?