Evans v. Coakley
Filing
9
Memorandum Opinion and Order 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 faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/17/2012. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TIAYON KARDELL EVANS,
Petitioner,
v.
JOE COAKLEY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:12CV2579
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 16, 2012, petitioner pro se Tiayon Kardell Evans, an inmate at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Elkton (“FCI Elkton”), filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition indicates Mr. Evans was convicted in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2005 on multiple counts of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine base, distribution of cocaine
base, distribution of heroin, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime. He received a 240 month sentence. See United States v. Evans, No. 2:04-cr-00099-RAJ-1
(E.D. Va. filed May 26, 2004). As grounds for the petition, he asserts that the indictment in his
case was void and that the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction. Petitioner also asserts that a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is unavailable because that section does not permit him to bring
challenges in the trial court to the legality or constitutionality of the order imprisoning him.
(4:12CV2579)
II. 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(e).
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) (quoting Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 377 (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) (per criam)).
Despite his legal arguments to the contrary, Petitioner seeks to raise issues that could and
must be raised, if anywhere, in a § 2255 motion addressed to the trial court which sentenced him.
2
(4:12CV2579)
The petition sets forth no reasonable suggestion of a proper basis on which to instead raise these
issues pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2241, or that “serious constitutional questions” require further
consideration of his claims.
III. CONCLUSION
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
faith.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 17, 2012
Date
1
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in
writing that it is not taken in good faith.
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?