Boylen v. United States of America

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion: Boylen's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is denied without prejudice. Boylen's motion for bail is moot, and denied as such. (Doc. No. 2 ). Further, the Court finds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Sara Lioi on 5/14/2018. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ADAM D. BOYLEN,
PETITIONER,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(For: Warden Steven Merlak),1
RESPONDENT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:18-cv-1064
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently before the Court is the petition of Adam Boylen (“Boylen”), proceeding pro se,
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1 (Petition)) and a motion for
bail pending determination of the petition (Doc. No. 2).2 The instant petition arises out of
Boylen’s conviction and sentence in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
for violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (Case No. 1:17-CR-50 (“Crim.
Case”).) (Crim. Case Doc. No. 26 (Judgment); Doc. No. 27 (Amended Judgment (September 12,
2017)).) On September 15, 2017, Boylen filed a Notice of Appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals regarding his criminal conviction, and that direct appeal remains pending. (Crim. Case
Doc. No. 28 (Notice).)
After filing the notice of appeal in his criminal case, Boylen filed a “Motion for Leave of
Judicial Notice” challenging the legality of his conviction. (Crim. Case Doc. No. 34.) The Court
construed Boylen’s motion as motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28

1

The caption reflects how it appears on Boylen’s petition.

2

Boylen has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

U.S.C. § 2255, and denied the motion without prejudice because his direct appeal is still pending
before the Sixth Circuit and Boylen failed to argue the existence of extraordinary circumstances
that would warrant consideration of a § 2255 motion during the pendency of his direct appeal.
(Crim. Case Doc. No. 36.)
Like his § 2255 motion, Boylen’s § 2241 petition challenges the legality of his
conviction. Boylen argues that exceptional circumstances warrant the Court’s immediate
consideration of his petition because this case presents issues of first impression regarding proper
application and interpretation of the Clean Water Act. (Petition at 8-9.3) Boylen claims that (1)
his counsel failed to raise these issues during his criminal case and caused Boylen to enter an
uninformed and involuntary guilty plea, (2) his direct appeal before the Sixth Circuit “has only
raised a sentencing challenge[,]” and (3) no other relief or remedy is available to test the legality
of his detention and imprisonment. (See id. at 9-12.)
Boylen’s § 2241 petition is denied without prejudice for multiple reasons. First, 28
U.S.C. § 2241 “is reserved for challenges to the execution of a sentence, such as the computation
of parole or sentence credits, and may not be used to challenge the validity of a conviction[.]”
Velasco v. Lamanna, 16 F. App’x 311, 314 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Cohen v. United States, 593
F.2d 766, 770-71 (6th Cir. 1979)). The proper vehicle to vacate, set aside, or correct Boylen’s
sentence with respect to his criminal conviction is a motion pursuant to § 2255, not a petition
pursuant to § 2241. See Brown v. Coakley, No. 4:13cv1637, 2014 WL 5795558, at *2 (N.D. Ohio
Nov. 6, 2014) (“Section 2255 is the primary avenue for relief for federal prisoners claiming the

All page number references are to the page identification numbers generated by the Court’s electronic docketing
system.
2
3

right to release as a result of unlawful conviction or sentence.”) (citing Charles v. Chandler, 180
F.3d 753, 756-57 (6th Cir. 1999)).
In very limited circumstances, a § 2241 petition may be used to contest a conviction or
sentence “‘if § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention’” Id. (quoting
Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009)); Hernandez v. Lamanna, 16 F. App’x
317, 319 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Under highly exceptional circumstances, a federal prisoner may
challenge his conviction and imposition of sentence under § 2241, instead of § 2255, if he is able
to establish that his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.”) (citations omitted). But such circumstances occur only when a “petitioner
demonstrates his ‘actual innocence based upon Supreme Court decisions announcing new rules
of statutory construction unavailable for attack under section 2255.’” Brown, 2014 WL 5795558,
at *2 (quoting Hayes v. Holland, 473 F. App’x 501, 501-02 (6th Cir. 2012)); Whitener v. Snyder,
23 F. App’x 257, 258 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Charles, 180 F.3d at 757). Boylen contends that he
is not a “person” under the Clean Water Act and, therefore, actually innocent. (See Petition at 2526.) In order to demonstrate actual innocence when contesting a conviction under § 2241, Boylen
must show “‘(1) the existence of a new interpretation of statutory law, (2) which was issued after
the petitioner had a meaningful time to incorporate the new interpretation into his direct appeals
or subsequent motions, (3) is retroactive, and (4) applies to the merits of the petition to make it
more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.’” Brown, 2014 WL
5795558, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2014) (quoting Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 307-08 (6th
Cir. 2012)). Boylen makes no such showing of actual innocence in his § 2241 petition.

3

Finally, federal prisoners are required to exhaust their administrative remedies before
filing a habeas petition under § 2241. Watts v. Gunja, No. 4:07CV3792, 2008 WL 423405, at *1
(N.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2008) (citing Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 953-954 (6th Cir. 1981)). To
the extent that Boylen’s § 2241 petition could be construed as a challenge the execution of his
sentence on appeal before the Sixth Circuit, the petition does not establish that Boylen has
exhausted his administrative remedies.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Boylen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied without prejudice. Boylen’s motion for bail is moot, and denied as
such. Further, the Court finds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2018
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

“Federal prisoners who file petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging their federal custody need not
obtain certificates of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).” Bautista v. Shartle, No. 4:09 CV 2759, 2012 WL
11135, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 3, 2012) (collecting cases).
4

4