Ingram v. Hanson
Filing
4
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying petition and this action is dismissed. The Court further 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
OLIVER CHRISTOPHER INGRAM,
Petitioner,
v.
RALPH HANSON,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:15 CV 1505
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se petitioner Oliver Christopher Ingram is an inmate in the Federal Correctional
Institution in Elkton, Ohio and has filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §2241. He has paid the filing fee.
The petition indicates the petitioner was sentenced in a criminal case by the District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and that his sentence was enhanced under the Armed
Career Criminal Act (ACCA). (See Doc. No. 1 at p. 1.) The petitioner challenges the
constitutionality of his sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Johnson v.
United States, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and the Sixth Circuit’s decision in United
States v. Darden, 605 Fed. App’x 545 (6th Cir. 2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that
the “residual clause” contained in a portion of the ACCA is void for vagueness and that
imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause violates due process. In Darden, the
Sixth Circuit held that Johnson applied to invalidate the similar residual clause in §4B1.2(a)(2)
of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In his petition, the petitioner seeks an order
“vacating the sentence for ACCA and for immediate release for time served.” (Id.)
Discussion
A district court must conduct an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C.
§2243; Alexander v. Bureau of Prisons, 419 Fed. App'x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). The court
must deny a petition on initial review if it plainly appears from the face of the petition that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief. Id. The allegations in the petition are accepted as true and
liberally construed in the petitioner’s favor. Urbina v. Thomas, 270 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir.
2001).
As a general matter, 28 U.S.C. §2255 and 28 U.S.C. §2241 provide the statutory scheme
for federal prisoners to obtain habeas relief. See Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442, 447 (6th
Cir. 2009). Section 2255 provides the primary avenue of relief for federal prisoners claiming
the right to release as a result of an unlawful sentence, while §2241 “is appropriate for claims
challenging the execution or manner in which the sentence is served.” United States v.
Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001). Therefore, claims asserted by federal prisoners
seeking to challenge their sentences must be filed in the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§2255. See Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999).
There is a “saving clause” in §2255, 28 U.S.C. §2255(e), which provides a narrow
exception to the statutory scheme and allows a federal prisoner to challenge his conviction or
sentence under § 2241 if § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the
detention.” Terrell, 564 F.3d at 447. Section 2255 relief is not inadequate or ineffective,
-2-
however, merely because § 2255 relief has been denied, the petitioner is procedurally barred
from pursuing § 2255 relief, or the petitioner has been denied permission to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. Barnes v. United States, 102 Fed. App’x 441, 443 (6th Cir. 2004).
Rather, the Sixth Circuit has held the savings clause applies to allow a §2241 petition only in
the narrow circumstance where a petitioner demonstrates “actual innocence based upon
Supreme Court decisions announcing new rules of statutory construction unavailable for attack
under section 2255.” Hayes v. Holland, 473 Fed. App’x 501, 502 (6th Cir. 2012). Actual
innocence means “factual innocence”; the petitioner must demonstrate “it is more likely than
not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” Barnes, 102 Fed. App’x at 443.
Although the petitioner refers to “actual innocence” in his petition, he challenges only
his enhanced sentence as a career offender; he does not contend he is actually innocent of the
underlying crime for which he was sentenced.1 The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly instructed that
“claims of sentencing error may not serve as the basis for an actual innocence claim” for
purposes of a pursuing a motion under 28 U.S.C. §2241. See Brown v. Hogsten, 503 Fed.
App’x 342, 343 (6th Cir. 2012); Jones v. Castillo, 489 Fed. App'x 864, 866 (6th Cir. 2012)
(“Claims alleging ‘actual innocence’ of a sentencing enhancement cannot be raised under §
2241”); Hayes, 473 Fed. App’x at 502 ("[t]he savings clause of section 2255(e) does not apply
to sentencing claims"); Bannerman v. Snyder, 325 F.3d 722, 724 (6th Cir. 2003) (“A challenge to
a sentence . . . cannot be the basis for an actual innocence claim . . .”). Accordingly, the
petitioner’s challenge to his enhanced sentence is not cognizable under §2241. Federal courts
1
The public docket of the Eastern District of Michigan indicates the petitioner pleaded guilty in
his criminal case to possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1).
United States v. Ingram, et al., Case No. 2: 10 CR 20565 (E.D. Mich.).
-3-
considering similar petitions have indicated that, if Johnson provides a petitioner a basis to
challenge the constitutionality of his enhanced sentence, it might be through a motion or second
or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. §2255. See, e.g., Tucker v. Snyder-Norris, No. CV
0:15-53-HRW, 2015 WL 5826825, at *3, n. 1 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 1, 2015) (noting that federal courts
of appeals have reached different conclusions as to whether Johnson is retroactively applicable
to cases on collateral review).
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, this Section 2241 petition is denied and this action is
dismissed. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from
this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Dan Aaron Polster 10/26/15
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
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?