Sheneman v. Merlak
Memorandum of 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 Christopher A. Boyko on 5/19/2017. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CASE NO. 4:17 CV 520
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On March 13, 2017, Petitioner pro se Michael Sheneman, 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 Sheneman was convicted in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in 2011 of wire fraud. See, United States v.
Shenemen, No. Dist. Ind.. Case No. 3:10-cr-00126. As grounds for the Petition, he asserts his
trial attorney misinformed him about the wire fraud statute, the documents used to convict him
were forged and his sentence was improperly enhanced. For the reasons stated below, this action
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Snyder, 13 Fed.Appx. 243, 248 (6th Cir. 2001)(unpublished disposition)(quoting Triestman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)).
Sheneman seeks to raise issues that could and must be raised in a Section 2255
motion. 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.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: May 19, 2017
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?