Berry v. Merlak
Filing
4
Order of Case Dismissal. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2 ) is granted. The Petition is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. This Court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Judge Jack Zouhary on 8/31/18. (C,D)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Lee Henry Berry,
Case No. 4:18 CV 1110
Petitioner,
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
-vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
Steven Merlak,
Respondent.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner pro se Lee Henry Berry is a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Elkton, Ohio. In 2007, he was convicted by a federal jury, in the Eastern District of
Michigan, of being a felon in possession of a firearm and of possession with intent to distribute
controlled substances. The district court determined Berry was a career offender and an armed career
criminal, and sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment to run consecutively to the term of
imprisonment imposed on him in Michigan state court for violating the terms of his probation related
to previous state offenses. Although Berry requested the district court impose his federal sentence
concurrent to his state sentence (on the basis of his age, the small quantities of cocaine involved in
his prior convictions, and the indeterminate date of his parole from state prison), the district court
ordered he serve his federal sentence consecutive to his undischarged state sentence.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed Berry’s conviction and sentence on appeal. United States v. Berry,
565 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009). The Sixth Circuit held the district court properly considered the
applicable Sentencing Guidelines in making its decision to impose a consecutive, rather than
concurrent, sentence. Id. at 340–43.
In 2010, Berry unsuccessfully sought to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing
the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter a criminal judgment against him. The district court and
the Sixth Circuit denied him a certificate of appealability. The Sixth Circuit also denied his
subsequent requests to file a second or successive motion to vacate his sentence under Section 2255.
See In re Lee Henry Berry, No. 16-1294 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2016); In re Lee Henry Berry, No. 142514 (6th Cir. May 8, 2015).
Berry now seeks relief from his sentence in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The
basis for his Petition is that a 2014 Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines applies retroactively to
his federal sentence, and entitles him to a “[r]eadjustment” of his sentence to reflect time he served
in connection with his state offenses (see Doc. 1 at 1, 4; see also Doc. 1-1; Doc. 1-3 at 25).
DISCUSSION
District courts conduct an initial review of habeas corpus petitions (see 28 U.S.C. § 2243),
and a court must deny a petition “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (applicable
to petitions under Section 2241 pursuant to Rule 1(b)). See also Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141
(6th Cir. 1970) (holding district courts have a duty under Section 2243 to “screen out” petitions
lacking merit on their face).
The Petition here must be dismissed because Berry is not entitled to relief under Section 2241.
Section 2255 provides the correct avenue for a federal prisoner to challenge “the imposition of [a]
sentence, whereas, [Section] 2241 is typically used to challenge the execution or manner in which the
sentence is served.” Rivera v. Warden, FCI, Elkton, 27 F. App’x 511, 513 (6th Cir. 2001) (emphasis
added). Only in very limited circumstances, where Section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality” of a detention, may a federal prisoner bring a Section 2241 petition to challenge his
2
sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See also Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999)
(explaining that Section 2255 relief is not inadequate or ineffective simply because it has been denied
or is procedurally barred, or because permission to file a second or successive motion has been
denied). The Petition here does not reflect Section 2255 relief is unavailable or inadequate.
In Rivera, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Section 2241 petition and held that
when clarifying amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines results in a lower guideline range, a federal
prisoner may “move the sentencing court” under 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in his
sentence (and “not the district court where he is incarcerated”) if the clarifying amendment is made
retroactive by the Sentencing Commission by being listed in then-U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), nowU.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). Rivera, 27 F. App’x at 515. If the clarifying amendment is not listed in
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), “the sentencing court can [still] reduce the sentence by applying the
amendment retroactively.” Id. Either way, the proper avenue for relief in this circumstance is a postconviction petition “with the sentencing court” under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),
not a Section 2241 petition in the district where the prisoner is incarcerated.
CONCLUSION
The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. The Petition is dismissed under
28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. This Court further certifies
that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
August 31, 2018
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?