Nunn v. Martin

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding petitioner's petition. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 12/27/2011. (bjc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
TYRONE NUNN, SR.

§

VS.

§

M. MARTIN

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11cv633

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Tyrone Nunn, Sr., an inmate confined within the
Bureau of Prisons, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Analysis
Petitioner is not challenging the manner in which his sentence
is being executed.
conviction.

Instead, he attacks the legality of his

A motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the primary means of
collaterally attacking a federal conviction and sentence. Tolliver
v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000).

In contrast, a

petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is normally the method to attack the manner in which a
sentence is being executed.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 is not a substitute for a motion to vacate.

Jeffers

v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
1001 (2001).

A prisoner may use Section 2241 as the vehicle for

attacking a conviction only if it appears that the remedy provided
by Section 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality

of his detention.”

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

A petitioner bears the

burden of proving the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the remedy
provided by Section 2255.

Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830.

A prior

unsuccessful motion to vacate filed pursuant to Section 2255 does
not make Section 2255 inadequate or ineffective.

Tolliver, 211

F.3d at 878.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has
set forth two requirements a petitioner must satisfy to demonstrate
that

the

remedy

ineffective.

provided

by

Section

2255

is

inadequate

or

The petitioner must establish that his grounds for

review: (1) are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court
decision which establishes the petitioner may have been convicted
of a nonexistent offense and (2) were foreclosed by circuit law at
the time when the ground for review could have been raised in
petitioner’s trial, direct appeal or initial motion to vacate.
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
In order to satisfy the first prong of the test, the petitioner
must show that, based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court
decision, he was convicted for conduct that did not constitute a
crime.

Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830-31.

Petitioner
contention

that

asserts
he

numerous

should

not

reasons
be

in

support

imprisoned.

of

However,

his
as

petitioner has not demonstrated he was convicted of a nonexistent
offense or that his grounds for review are based on a retroactively
applicable Supreme Court decision and were foreclosed by circuit
law when they could have been raised, he has failed to satisfy
2

either prong of the Reyes-Requena test.

Petitioner’s grounds for

review are therefore not cognizable in a petition filed pursuant to
Section 2241.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this petition for writ of
habeas corpus will be dismissed.

An appropriate final judgment

shall be entered.
SIGNED this the 27 day of December, 2011.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge

3