United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
ADAM D. BOYLEN, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (For Warden Steven Merlak),  RESPONDENT.
HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the petition of Adam Boylen
(“Boylen”), proceeding pro se, for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1
(Petition)) and a motion for bail pending determination of
the petition (Doc. No. 2). The instant petition arises out of
Boylen's conviction and sentence in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Ohio, for violations of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
(No. 1:17-CR-50 (“Crim. Case”).) (Crim. Case Doc.
No. 26 (Judgment); Doc. No. 27 (Amended Judgment (September
12, 2017)).) On September 15, 2017, Boylen filed a Notice of
Appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding his
criminal conviction, and that direct appeal remains pending.
(Crim. Case Doc. No. 28 (Notice).)
filing the notice of appeal in his criminal case, Boylen
filed a “Motion for Leave of Judicial Notice”
challenging the legality of his conviction. (Crim. Case Doc.
No. 34.) The Court construed Boylen's motion as motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255, and denied the motion without prejudice
because his direct appeal is still pending before the Sixth
Circuit and Boylen failed to argue the existence of
extraordinary circumstances that would warrant consideration
of a § 2255 motion during the pendency of his direct
appeal. (Crim. Case Doc. No. 36.)
his § 2255 motion, Boylen's § 2241 petition
challenges the legality of his conviction. Boylen argues that
exceptional circumstances warrant the Court's immediate
consideration of his petition because this case presents
issues of first impression regarding proper application and
interpretation of the Clean Water Act. (Petition at
8-9.) Boylen claims that (1) his counsel failed
to raise these issues during his criminal case and caused
Boylen to enter an uninformed and involuntary guilty plea,
(2) his direct appeal before the Sixth Circuit “has
only raised a sentencing challenge[, ]” and (3) no
other relief or remedy is available to test the legality of
his detention and imprisonment. (See id. at 9-12.)
§ 2241 petition is denied without prejudice for multiple
reasons. First, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “is reserved for
challenges to the execution of a sentence, such as the
computation of parole or sentence credits, and may not be
used to challenge the validity of a conviction[.]”
Velasco v. Lamanna, 16 Fed.Appx. 311, 314 (6th Cir.
2001) (citing Cohen v. United States, 593 F.2d 766,
770-71 (6th Cir. 1979)). The proper vehicle to vacate, set
aside, or correct Boylen's sentence with respect to his
criminal conviction is a motion pursuant to § 2255, not
a petition pursuant to § 2241. See Brown v.
Coakley, No. 4:13cv1637, 2014 WL 5795558, at *2 (N.D.
Ohio Nov. 6, 2014) (“Section 2255 is the primary avenue
for relief for federal prisoners claiming the right to
release as a result of unlawful conviction or
sentence.”) (citing Charles v. Chandler, 180
F.3d 753, 756-57 (6th Cir. 1999)).
limited circumstances, a § 2241 petition may be used to
contest a conviction or sentence “‘if § 2255
is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the
detention'” Id. (quoting Terrell v.
United States, 564 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009));
Hernandez v. Lamanna, 16 Fed.Appx. 317, 319 (6th
Cir. 2001) (“Under highly exceptional circumstances, a
federal prisoner may challenge his conviction and imposition
of sentence under § 2241, instead of § 2255, if he
is able to establish that his remedy under § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.”) (citations omitted). But such
circumstances occur only when a “petitioner
demonstrates his ‘actual innocence based upon Supreme
Court decisions announcing new rules of statutory
construction unavailable for attack under section
2255.'” Brown, 2014 WL 5795558, at *2
(quoting Hayes v. Holland, 473 Fed.Appx. 501, 501-02
(6th Cir. 2012)); Whitener v. Snyder, 23 Fed.Appx.
257, 258 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Charles, 180 F.3d
at 757). Boylen contends that he is not a
“person” under the Clean Water Act and,
therefore, actually innocent. (See Petition at
25-26.) In order to demonstrate actual innocence when
contesting a conviction under § 2241, Boylen must show
“‘(1) the existence of a new interpretation of
statutory law, (2) which was issued after the petitioner had
a meaningful time to incorporate the new interpretation into
his direct appeals or subsequent motions, (3) is retroactive,
and (4) applies to the merits of the petition to make it more
likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted
him.'” Brown, 2014 WL 5795558, at *2 (N.D.
Ohio Nov. 6, 2014) (quoting Wooten v. Cauley, 677
F.3d 303, 307-08 (6th Cir. 2012)). Boylen makes no such
showing of actual innocence in his § 2241 petition.
federal prisoners are required to exhaust their
administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition under
§ 2241. Watts v. Gunja, No. 4:07CV3792, 2008 WL
423405, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2008) (citing Little v.
Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 953-954 (6th Cir. 1981)). To the
extent that Boylen's § 2241 petition could be
construed as a challenge the execution of his sentence on
appeal before the Sixth Circuit, the petition does not
establish that Boylen has exhausted his administrative
of the foregoing reasons, Boylen's petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied
without prejudice. Boylen's motion for bail is moot, and
denied as such. Further, the Court finds, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision
could not be taken in good faith.
IS SO ORDERED
 The caption reflects how it appears on
 Boylen has neither paid the filing fee
nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
 All page number references are to the
page identification numbers generated by the Court's