Davis v. Hanson
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CASE NO. 1:14 CV 2039
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On September 15, 2014, petitioner pro se Jeffrey Davis filed the above-captioned habeas
corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed.
On September 26, 2006, petitioner pleaded guilty in this court to possession with intent to
distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and
being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). United States v. Davis,
N.D. Oh. Case No. 1:06 CR 257. He subsequently was denied a motion to withdraw his plea and
a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Additionally, two previous 2241 actions
filed by Davis have been denied by this court. Davis v. Farley, N.D. Oh. Case No. 1:11 CV 2154,
aff’d, U.S. 6th Cir. No. 11-4454; Davis v. Coakley, N.D. Oh. Case No. 1:13 CV 360, aff’d, U.S. 6th
Cir. No. 13-3389. The petitions in those cases asserted Davis was “actually innocent,” as does the
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Habeas corpus petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 address the execution of a
sentence, while motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 test the validity of a judgment and
sentence. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998)(citing United States v. Jalili,
925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991)). Section 2255 provides in pertinent part:
[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner
who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this
section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has
failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced
him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears
that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The terms "inadequate" or "ineffective" do not mean that habeas corpus relief is available
whenever a federal prisoner faces a substantive or procedural barrier to § 2255 relief, including the
denial of a previously filed section 2255 motion. Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir.
1999). Rather, the “savings clause” applies when the failure to allow some form of collateral
review would raise “serious constitutional questions.” Frost v. Snyder, 13 Fed.Appx. 243, 248 (6th
Cir. 2001)(unpublished disposition)(quoting Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 376 (2d Cir.
1997)). The petitioner bears the burden of proving that the section 2255 remedy is inadequate or
ineffective. Charles, 180 F.3d at 756 (citing McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979)).
Davis seeks to raise issues that have or could have been raised in his previous postjudgment
motions and habeas action. The petition sets forth no reasonable suggestion of a proper basis on
For a detailed history of petitioner’s repeated efforts to vacate his conviction and
sentence, see this court’s December 9, 2011 memorandum of opinion and order in
Case No. 1:11 CV 2154.
which to now raise these issues pursuant to this third 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action, or that “serious
constitutional questions” require further consideration of his claims.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Dan Aaron Polster 10/21/14
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?