Opinion
Case No. 01-CV-73295-DT
September 27, 2001
Petitioner Rodney Anderson, a federal prisoner currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his drug conspiracy conviction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), and United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972), Petitioner asserts that his sentence is invalid and that he is actually innocent.
For the reasons stated below, the court concludes that the petition must be dismissed and the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for consideration as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Petitioner was convicted of conspiring with co-defendant William Hubbard to manufacture phencyclidine (PCP) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and sentenced to a term of 262 months imprisonment. Petitioner filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. United States v. Hubbard, 22 F.3d 1410 (7th Cir. 1994). Petitioner's request for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court was denied. Hubbard v. United States, 513 U.S. 1095 (1995).
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 with the trial court challenging his conviction and sentence, which was denied in part and continued in part pending an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Anderson, No. 96-C-2263, 91-CR-692-1, 1997 WL 370254 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 1997) Following the hearing, the trial court denied the remaining portion of Petitioner's § 2255 motion. United States v. Anderson, 1998 WL 526572 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 1998). Petitioner filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Anderson v. United States, 182 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 1999) Petitioner's request for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court was denied. Anderson v. United States, 528 U.S. 1066 (1999).
Petitioner submitted the instant habeas petition to this court on August 20, 2001, and it was filed on August 28, 2001. Petitioner also seeks leave to file a memorandum in support of his petition.
II. Analysis
A motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper avenue for relief on a federal inmate's claims that his sentence was imposed in violation of the federal constitution or laws. See Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998). A federal prisoner may bring a claim challenging his or her conviction or the imposition of sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only if it appears that the remedy afforded under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the defendant's detention. See Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999). Habeas corpus is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence. Id. at 758. The burden of showing that the remedy afforded under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective rests with the petitioner, and the mere fact that a prior motion to vacate sentence may have proven unsuccessful does not necessarily meet that burden. See In Re Gregory, 181 F.3d 713, 714 (6th Cir. 1999).
As an initial matter, the court notes that the remedy afforded under § 2255 is not considered inadequate or ineffective simply because § 2255 relief has already been denied, or because the petitioner has been procedurally barred from pursuing relief under § 2255, or because the petitioner has been denied permission to file a second or successive motion to vacate sentence. Charles, 180 F.3d at 756. The mere fact that a petitioner may be prevented from filing a second or successive motion to vacate or set aside the sentence, in the absence of newly-discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law, does not render the remedy provided by such motion inadequate or ineffective so as to allow him to seek habeas relief under § 2241. See Millan v. Parks, 18 F. Supp.2d 144, 145 (D. Puerto Rico 1998).
Although Petitioner has filed a previous motion to set aside, vacate, or correct his sentence under § 2255, he may be able to file a second or successive motion with proper court approval. Section 2255 specifically provides that a second or successive motion may be certified by a court of appeals if it contains "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner has not demonstrated that his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. Accordingly, the court finds that Petitioner has filed a habeas petition when the proper collateral remedy for challenging his sentence is to file a motion under § 2255.
"Section 2255 explicitly authorizes a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed by a federal court to attack such a sentence collaterally upon the ground that the sentence `was imposed in violation of the . . . laws of the United States . . . .'" Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334, 338 (1963). A motion under § 2255 affords the same rights as a habeas corpus petition. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343-44 (1974); Andrews, 373 U.S. at 339; In re Hanserd, 123 F.3d 922, 925 (6th Cir. 1997) ("Section 2255 is . . . a statutory remedy that Congress enacted to supplant habeas corpus for federal prisoners."). However, unlike federal habeas corpus proceedings, a motion under § 2255 is ordinarily presented to the judge who presided at the petitioner's original conviction and sentencing. Rule 4(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255; see also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 427 (1962); In re Hanserd, 123 F.3d at 925 ("Congress . . . enacted § 2255 largely to allow the court that imposed sentence, rather than a court that happened to be near a prison, to hear a collateral attack on that sentence."). Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for further proceedings. The court makes no determination as to the merits of the § 2255 motion.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the court concludes that the present habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be dismissed and transferred to the sentencing court as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Accordingly, the court DENIES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Given this determination, the court DENIES Petitioner's motion for leave to file a memorandum in support of his petition. The Clerk of the Court shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for further consideration.
Because a certificate of appealability is not needed to appeal the denial of a habeas petition filed under § 2241, see King v. United States, 124 F.3d 198, 1997 WL 580776, *2 (6th Cir. 1997), Petitioner need not apply for one with this court or with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit before seeking to appeal this decision.