United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Se Petitioner Julius Charles Sims, a federal prisoner
incarcerated in FCI-Elkton, has filed a Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(ECF No. 1.) The matter is before the Court for initial
screening. See 28 U.S.C. §2243; Alexander
v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App'x 544, 545
(6th Cir. 2011). Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (made
applicable to Section 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)), the
Court must dismiss the Petition “if it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” See also
Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.
1970) (the district court has “a duty to screen out a
habeas corpus petition which should be dismissed for
lack of merit on its face.”).
reasons stated below, the Court finds that the Petition must
be summarily dismissed.
asserts he was sentenced before the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana in a federal
criminal case on July 22, 2007, to a term of 262 months
imprisonment. His conviction was based on Count 5 of an
indictment charging him with possession with intent to
distribute controlled substances. Petitioner asserts that his
sentence reflected, in part, a finding that he was a Career
Offender under the federal sentencing guidelines based on
prior convictions he had in Indiana. In this case, Petitioner
seeks relief from his enhanced sentence under § 2241.
federal prisoner wishes to challenge the legality of his
conviction or sentence, he must do so by filing a motion for
post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123
(6th Cir. 2003). A habeas corpus petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is only “appropriate for
claims challenging the execution or manner in which the
sentence is served, ” such as claims challenging
computation of sentence credits or determining terms of
parole. United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461
(6th Cir. 2001); Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d
442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009). Section 2255 contains a
limited “savings clause, ” 28 U.S.C. §
2255(e), that allows a prisoner to bring a § 2241 claim
challenging the legality of his conviction or sentence in the
extraordinarily narrow circumstances where a prisoner can
show that the remedy afforded under § 2255 is
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” In re Hanserd, 123 F.3d 922, 929
(6th Cir. 1997). The Sixth Circuit has regularly
indicated that the narrow scope of relief under the savings
clause does not apply to sentencing claims. See Jones v.
Castillo, 489 F. App'x 864, 866, 2012 WL 2947933, at
*1 (6th Cir. 2012) (“[c]laims alleging
“actual innocence” of a sentencing enhancement
cannot be raised under § 2241”); see also
Reminsky v. U.S., 523 F. App'x 327, 329 (6th Cir.
2013) (“The savings clause of § 2255(e) does not
apply to sentencing claims.”).
the Sixth Circuit held that a prisoner may raise a
sentence-enhancement claim in a § 2241 petition in very
limited circumstances. See Hill v. Masters, 836 F.3d
591 (6th Cir. 2016). The Hill Court
expressly defined those circumstances as
a narrow subset of § 2241 petitions: (1) prisoners who
were sentenced under the mandatory guidelines regime
pre-United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct.
738, 160 L.Ed. 621 (2005), (2) who are foreclosed from filing
a successive petition under § 2255, and (3) when a
subsequent, retroactive change in statutory interpretation by
the Supreme Court reveals that a previous conviction is not a
predicate offense for a career-offender enhancement.
Id. at 599-600.
Petition does not suggest that the circumstances articulated
in Hill apply here. Petitioner was not sentenced
under the mandatory guidelines regime pre-United States
v. Booker. Rather, he was sentenced in 2010, after
Booker was decided. In addition, his Petition does
not demonstrate that he is foreclosed from filing a petition
under § 2255 based on a change in statutory
interpretation by the Supreme Court that would apply
retroactively to invalidate his sentence.
the Petition in this case is denied and this action is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases. The court
further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),