Opinion
1:24CV521
07-24-2024
TIMOTHY SEAN COOGLE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Joi Elizabeth Peake United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Generally, petitions pursuant to § 2241 challenge the execution or computation, as opposed to the validity or legality, of a conviction or sentence. This Petition does not pose such a challenge, but instead challenges the validity of Petitioner's conviction in the Southern District of West Virginia following his guilty plea in that district to a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
The normal vehicle for seeking post-conviction relief from a criminal conviction in federal court is a motion to vacate, correct or set aside sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the district of conviction. Petitioner does not state whether or not he previously pursued such a motion, but all of the arguments he raises are of the type that must normally be raised under § 2255.
Relief pursuant to § 2241 is available to petitioners seeking to challenge the validity or legality of their conviction or sentence only where a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of their detention, under the saving clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023). However, § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual is unable to obtain relief under that provision, including due to an inability to meet the requirements for filing a second or successive motion under § 2255. Id.
Here, Petitioner does not even attempt to explain how his claims meet the saving clause. Instead, as noted above, he simply raises arguments of the type that can be raised in a motion under § 2255. Such arguments are not appropriate in a filing under § 2241 absent satisfaction of the saving clause. Therefore, Petitioner's filing should be dismissed without prejudice to him raising his claims in the district where he was convicted or, if he has already pursued relief through a motion under § 2255 in that court, seeking permission from the United States Court of Appeals to pursue a second or successive § 2255 motion in that district.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action be filed and then dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner pursuing relief under § 2255 in his district of conviction either by filing a first motion for relief under § 2255 or, if he has already pursued relief through a motion under § 2255 in that court, after successfully seeking certification for a second or successive § 2255 motion by filing a Motion for Authorization in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2244.