Bartlett v. Rardin

Filing 7

ORDER (1) Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and (2) Terminating Petitioner's 2 Motion for Appointment of an Investigator as Moot. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALAN MICHAEL BARTLETT,
Petitioner,

Case No. 23-cv-13029
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
ERIC RARDIN,
Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1) AND (2) TERMINATING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF AN INVESTIGATOR AS MOOT (ECF No. 2)
Petitioner Alan Michael Bartlett is a federal inmate in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. He is currently incarcerated at FCI Milan in Milan,
Michigan. On November 30, 2023, Bartlett filed (1) a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and (2) a motion for the
appointment of an investigator. (See Pet., ECF No. 1; Mot., ECF No. 2.) In the
petition, Bartlett seeks relief from his convictions in the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska.

For the reasons explained below, the petition is

DISMISSED and Bartlett’s motion is TERMINATED as moot.
I
In 2015, a jury in the District of Alaska convicted Bartlett of two counts of
mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, twenty counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, five
1

counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, five counts of false statements, 18 U.S.C. §
1001, and five counts of aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. The United
States District Court for the District of Alaska then sentenced Bartlett to 156 months’
imprisonment and ordered him to pay $8,568 in restitution. (See United States v.
Bartlett, D. Alaska Case No. 13-44, ECF No. 349.)
Bartlett filed a direct appeal in which he asserted that the trial court failed to
timely hold a competency hearing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed his convictions on
January 24, 2017. See United States v. Bartlett, 675 F. App’x 759 (9th Cir. 2017).
On October 2, 2018, Bartlett filed a motion for post-conviction relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which he raised twenty-nine claims. (See United States v.
Bartlett, D. Alaska Case No. 13-44, ECF No. 521.) The district court denied the
motion. (See id., ECF No. 553.) The Ninth Circuit then denied him a Certificate of
Appealability. See United States v. Bartlett, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 15752 (9th Cir.
May 15, 2020).
Bartlett then sought permission to file at least two successive motions under
Section 2255, and the Ninth Circuit denied him permission to do so. See Bartlett v.
United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7663 (9th Cir. March 23, 2022); Bartlett v.
United States, Case No. 23-386 (9th Cir. June 30, 2023). In his second motion for
permission to file a successive Section 2255 petition, Bartlett asserted that he had
new evidence indicating that the complainants who testified at his trial were

2

government agents posing as civilians. (See Mot. for Authorization, United States v.
Bartlett, D. Alaska Case No. 13-44, ECF No. 604-1.) The Ninth Circuit concluded
that Bartlett had failed to demonstrate an entitlement to file a successive motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1) or (2). (See id., ECF No. 604.)
Bartlett was subsequently transferred to FCI Milan in this Court’s jurisdiction,
and on November 30, 2023, he filed his current petition under Section 2241. In that
petition, Bartlett again claims that government agents posed as civilian victims at his
trial. (See Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.11-15.) Bartlett asserts that he is entitled to
proceed under Section 2241 because the Ninth Circuit has barred him from
proceeding under Section 2255 in the District of Alaska.
II
Bartlett’s claims in his petition are not cognizable under Section 2241.
Ordinarily, “[a] federal prisoner must challenge the legality of his detention by
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,” not in a Section 2241 petition. Wooten v. Cauley,
677 F.3d 303, 306 (6th Cir. 2012). A limited exception to this rule is found in the
“savings clause” of Section 2255(e). The savings clause of Section 2255(e) allows
a federal prisoner to challenge the lawfulness of his conviction or sentence under
Section 2241 only if “the remedy [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of his detention.’” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). “It is the petitioner’s burden to
establish that his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective,” Charles v.

3

Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (1999), and the circumstances under which that burden
may be met “are narrow.” United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir.
2001). As the Supreme Court recently explained, the savings clause cannot be used
as “end run” around the procedural limitations placed on post-conviction review by
Section 2255. Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S.Ct. 1857, 1868 (2023). Instead, the savings
clause applies only where “unusual circumstances make it impossible or
impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court.” Id. at 1866.
The “narrow” and “unusual” circumstances that could allow Bartlett to
proceed under Section 2241 do not exist here. As described above, Bartlett already
unsuccessfully sought post-conviction review under Section 2255 in the District of
Alaska, and the Ninth Circuit twice ruled that he was not entitled to file a successive
motion for habeas relief. The fact that Bartlett failed to demonstrate entitlement to
file a successive motion under Section 2255(h) does not mean that his remedy under
Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. Indeed, Section 2241 is not an “additional,
alternative, or supplemental remedy” to a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a
sentence under Section 2255. Charles, 180 F.3d at 758. See also Jones, 143 S.Ct. at
1868. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Bartlett’s petition.1 See
Taylor v. Owens, 990 F.3d 493, 499-500 (6th Cir. 2021) (concluding that habeas

1

Because the Court is dismissing Bartlett’s Section 2241 petition, it will
TERMINATE his motion to appoint an investigator (ECF No. 2) as MOOT.
4

petitioner had failed to show that “a section 2255 motion [was] inadequate or
ineffective to challenge his sentence” and therefore directing district court to dismiss
Section 2241 petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).
III
For the reasons explained above, the Court SUMMARILY DISMISSES
Bartlett’s petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas
Corpus Cases.
The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal
from this decision cannot be taken in good faith. Bartlett is therefore DENIED
permission to appeal this decision in forma pauperis.
Finally, the Court notes that a Certificate of Appealability is not needed to
appeal the denial of a habeas petition filed under § 2241. See Witham v. United
States, 355 F.3d 501, 504 (6th Cir. 2004).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 4, 2024
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on June 4, 2024, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]
5