Curtis v. United States of America

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, without prejudice. A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 7/7/2014. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MYLES E. CURTIS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-CV-1126-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of Myles E. Curtis' application for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Petitioner is currently

incarcerated at FCI-Memphis, Tennessee.
Background
Petitioner states that, following a jury trial, he was convicted of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
846. On May 10, 1991, he was sentenced to a term of forty years' imprisonment.
The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.

In the instant action,

petitioner seeks relief from his sentence on the ground that "the District Court
violated his due process rights . . . when it sentenced him to an enhanced term of
imprisonment based on elements of his offense that were not submitted to nor
found by the jury." See Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). For

relief, petitioner seeks resentencing.
Discussion
Petitioner's request for relief pursuant to § 2241 will be denied. First, this
Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant action, because petitioner is
not located in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri's
judicial district, and the person having custody over him, the warden at FCIMemphis, cannot be reached by service of process. See Braden v. 30th Judicial
Circuit Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1972).
Second, even if petitioner or his custodian were located in this district,
petitioner's § 2241 application would be denied.

A challenge to a federal

conviction or sentence is most appropriately brought as a motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. See United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 217 (1952). Moreover, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that a writ of habeas
corpus may issue under § 2241 only if it appears that the remedy by means of
filing a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective. See United States v. Lurie, 207
F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000). In the instant action, petitioner summarily claims
that his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate. Specifically, he states, "Petitioner
further argues that § 2241 is the appropriate remedy for him to seek relief due to §
2255 being inadequate to bring the claim" [Doc. #1-1, p. 3]. The Court finds that

2

petitioner=s summary statement is insufficient to establish the inadequacy or
ineffectiveness of remedy by a § 2255 motion.
In addition, the Court notes that petitioner previously brought a § 2255
motion to vacate that was dismissed as time-barred. See Curtis v. United States,
No. 1:01-CV-107-SNL (E.D. Mo.). It may be that petitioner styled the instant
action as a § 2241 petition in an effort to avoid characterization as a successive §
2255 motion; however, a § 2255 motion is not inadequate simply because it is
successive.1 See Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 376 (2d Cir. 1997) (the
"inadequate or ineffective" provision in § 2255 does not mean that habeas corpus is
preserved whenever a federal prisoner faces a substantive or procedural barrier to §
2255 relief).
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the instant § 2241 petition.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, without prejudice.
1

As amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2255 now provides that a "second or successive motion
must be certified . . . by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals" to contain
certain information. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides that "[b]efore a
second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district
court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application."
3

A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 7th day of July, 2014.

__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4