KOPCZYNSKI v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Since § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of Petitioner's conviction, his § 2241 petition will be dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal does not preclude Petitioner from filing a § 2255 petition in the Western District of New York. An appropriate Order will enter. Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 4/9/15. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ERIK KOPCZYNSKI,
CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-366

Petitioner

(Judge Conaboy)

v.

FJLED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

SCRANTON

Respondent

t

D,

0 9 20 1
5

MEMORANDUM

Background

This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Erik Kopczynski,

an

inmate presently confined at the Allenwood Low Security
Correctional Institution, White Deer,
Allenwood).
America.

1

Pennsylvania (LSCI-

Named as Respondent is the United States of
The matter was subsequently transferred to this Court

due to Kopczynski's confinement at LSCI-Allenwood.
request

(Doc. 6)

Petitioner's

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted for the sole purpose of the filing of his action with
this Court.
Kopczynski states that he is presently serving a federal
criminal sentence which was imposed on May 16, 2011 by the

1 The only properly named Respondent in a
federal habeas
corpus action is Petitioner's custodial official, in this case the
Warden at LSCI-Allenwood.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

1

United States District Court for the Western District of New
York.

See Doc. 1,

~

4.

An attachment to the Petition indicates

that Kopczynski was convicted of production of child
pornography.

See Doc. 1-2, p. 1.

Petitioner indicates that he

did not file either a direct appeal or pursue a request for
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Kopczynski adds that he is

procedurally time barred from seeking relief under § 2255 but
his pending claims can be raised under

§

2241.

See Doc. 1,

~

10 (c) .
The Petition generally claims entitlement to federal
~actual

habeas corpus relief on the grounds of
federal crime."

Doc. 1,

~

5.

innocence of a

Petitioner adds that the "[t]he

federal government had no jurisdiction over the
because defendants [sic] actions did not rise to
of the statute used to charge him."2

Id. at

~

13.

fendant
definition
As relief,

Petitioner requests that his conviction be reversed and he be
released from confinement

See id. at

~

14.

Discussion
Standard of Review
Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal

2
It appears that Petitioner is contending that
re was
no evidence that he took photographs of a child for either his own
sexual gratification or for profit.
See Doc. 1-2. P. 10.
Rather,
Kopczynski claims that he was simply photographing a young child
whose habit at the time was to disrobe and run about the house.
See id. at p. 9.

2

pursuant to Rule 4 ("Preliminary Review") of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28
U.S.C. foIl.

§

2254

(2004).

See,~,

Mutope v. Pennsylvania

Board of Probation and Parole, 2007 WL 846559 *2 (M.D. Pa. March
19, 2007) (Kosi k, J.).
to

§

The provisions of Rule 4 are applicable

2241 petitions under Rule l(b}).

See, e.g., Patton v.

Fenton, 491 F. Supp. 156, 158 59 (M.D. Pa. 1979).
Rule 4 provides in pertinent part: "If it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the
petitioner."

A petition may be dismissed without review of an

answer "when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacking in
merit, or where.

the necessary facts can be determined from

the petition itself.

"

Gorko v. Holt, 2005 WL 1138479

*1 (M. D. Pa. May 13, 2005) (McClure, J.) (quoting Allen v. Perini,
424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970).
Habeas corpus review under

§

2241 "allows a federal

prisoner to challenge the 'execution' of his sentence."

Woodall

v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005).
A habeas corpus petition may be brought by a prisoner who seeks
to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement in
p

son.

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), Telford v.

Hepting, 980 F.2d 745, 748
(1993).

(3d Cir.),

denied,

510 U.S. 920

Federal habeas relief is available only "where the
3

deprivation of

ghts is such that it necessarily impacts the

fact or length of detention."
540

Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532,

(3d Cir. 2002).
In the present case, Petitioner clearly states that he is

attacking the legality of his conv

ion and sentence which were

imposed by the Western District of New York.
When challenging the validity of a federal sentence, and
not the execution of his sentence, a federal prisoner is
generally limited to seeking relief by way of a motion pursuant
to

§

2255.

In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997)

Russell v. Martinez, No. 08-3898, 2009 WL 1154194, at *2

i

(3d Cir.

Apr. 30, 2009) ("a section 2255 motion filed in the sentencing
court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to
challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence")
can only be brought under
remedy by [a

§

§

2241 if "it . . . appears that the

2255] motion is inadequate or ineffect

the legality of his detention."
language in

§

A challenge

28 U.S.C.

§

2255(e).

to test
This

2255, known as the safety-valve clause, must be

strictly construed.

Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251; Russell, 2009

WL 1154194, at *2 (the sa

ty valve "is extremely narrow and has

been held to apply in unusual situations, such as those in which
a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his
conviction for a crime later deemed to be non-criminal by an
intervening change in the law").

4

"It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal
inability to use it, that is determinative.//
States, 290 F.3d 536, 538

(3d Cir. 2002).

Cradle v. United

"Section 2255 is not

inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court
does not grant relief, the one-year statute of limitations has
expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent
gate keeping requirements of the amended § 2255."

Id. at 539.

See also, Alexander v. Williamson, 2009 WL 1020218, at *2

(3d

Cir. Apr. 16, 2009).
Petitioner is clearly challenging the validity of his
conviction and sentence which was imposed by the Western District
of New York.
of § 2255.

Thus, he must do so by following the requirements
As previously noted, there is no indication that

Kopczynski pursued either a direct appeal or a § 2255 motion.
Hence, there is no basis for a determination that his § 2255
remedy is inadequate or ineffective.
Furthermore, Petitioner's pending argument is not based
upon a contention that his conduct is no longer criminal as a
result of some change in the law made retroactive to cases on
collateral review.

Kopczynski has also not shown that he was

unable to present his claim in a

§

2255 proceeding or that it is

based upon any newly discovered evidence.
As recognized in Pollard v. Yost, No. 07-235, 2008 WL
4933599, at *6 (W.O. Pa. Nov. 18, 2008), for a challenge to a
federal conviction to be presented by a federal inmate by way of
5

a

§

2241 pet

ion, there must not only be "a claim of actual

innocence but a claim of actual innocence coupled with the
inability to have brought the claim before because of a change in
the construction of the criminal statute by a court having the
last word on the proper construction of the statute, which change
rendered what had been thought to be criminal within the ambit of
the statute, no longer criminal.

H

Clearly, Petitioner has not

shown that he was unable to present his present claim on direct
appeal or in a

§

2255 proceeding.

As a result, Kopczynski's

pending argument for relief does not fall within the Dorsainvil
exception.
*2

See Levan v. Sneizek, No. 08-4116, 2009 WL 997442, at

(3d Cir. April 15, 2009); Smith v. Snyder, 48 Fed. Appx. 109,

110 11 (6th Cir. 2002).
Since

§

2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to test the

legality of Petitioner's conviction, his
dismissed without prejudice.
Petitioner from filing a
of New York.

§

This

§

smissal does not preclude

2255 petition in the Western District

An appropriate Order will enter.

I

[fA

DATED:

2241 petition will be

1

rICHARD P. CONABOY
United States District Judge

APRIL{~ , L2015

6