United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
MATTHEW MARSKE, Warden Federal Correctional Institution - Oxford, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge.
Anthony Williams seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 from his continued confinement at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Oxford, Wisconsin. The petition
is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which may be applied
to habeas petitions not brought pursuant to § 2254,
including § 2241 petitions. See Rule 1(b),
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also 28
U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, the court will dismiss the
petition only if it plainly appears that petitioner is not
entitled to relief.
is serving an 84-month sentence as the result of a June 24,
2011, judgment of conviction for “unlawful transport of
firearms” and “felon in possession of a firearm,
” entered by the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan. In his petition, Williams
argues that his sentence is unlawful because he did not
receive credit for time he spent in custody before his
federal sentence commenced. Williams made the same argument
in a petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
Western District of Michigan. See Williams v. United
States, Case No. 16-cv-1115-rhb. That petition was
dismissed as untimely on December 19, 2016.
petition under § 2241 will likewise be dismissed because
Williams may not obtain the relief he seeks under §
2241. To collaterally attack a conviction or sentence, a
federal prisoner must ordinarily file a petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Brown v. Caraway,
719 F.3d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 2013). A narrow exception to this
rule is found in subsection (e), known as § 2255's
“savings clause, ” which allows a federal
prisoner to “petition under section 2241 instead if his
section 2255 remedy is ‘inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention.'” Brown v.
Rios, 696 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e)). “Inadequate or ineffective
means that a legal theory that could not have been presented
under § 2255 establishes the petitioner's actual
innocence.” Hill v. Werlinger, 695 F.3d 644,
648 (7th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks
Seventh Circuit has established three conditions that must be
present before a petitioner can proceed under § 2241
pursuant to this “inadequate or ineffective”
exception. First, the petitioner must be relying on a new
statutory-interpretation case-rather than on a constitutional
case-because § 2255 offers relief to prisoners who rely
on new constitutional cases. Second, the petitioner must be
relying on a decision that is retroactive on collateral
review and that he could not have invoked in his § 2255
petition. Third, the error that the petitioner identifies
must be grave enough to be deemed a miscarriage of justice.
Light v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 809, 812 (7th Cir. 2014),
cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 970 (2015); In re Davenport,
147 F.3d 605, 611-12 (7th Cir. 1998).
Williams cannot meet the first two conditions: he has not
identified a case adopting a new statutory interpretation,
much less a new case given retroactive application on
collateral review. Instead, his argument is based solely on
his interpretation of the facts. Moreover, the Seventh
Circuit has made clear that the fact that a petitioner's
first § 2255 motion was untimely does not render §
2255 inadequate. Morales v. Bezy, 499 F.3d 668, 672
(7th Cir. 2007). Because petitioner has not demonstrated that
§ 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective, ” he
cannot pursue his claims under § 2241 and his petition
must be dismissed.
a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal from
a properly filed motion under § 2241. See
Behr v. Ramsey, 230 F.3d 268, 270 (7th Cir. 2000)
(“no certificate of appealability is required in
proper § 2241 cases like this one”)
(emphasis added). Because Williams' petition could be
interpreted as an untimely or successive petition under
§ 2255, the court will also address the issue of a
certificate of appealability. Under Rule 11 of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the court must issue or
deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final
order adverse to a defendant. To obtain a certificate of
appealability, the applicant must make a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Tennard v. Dretke, 542
U.S. 274, 282 (2004). This means that “reasonable
jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree
that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Although the rule
allows a court to ask the parties to submit arguments on
whether a certificate should issue, it is not necessary to do
so in this case because the question is not a close one. In
this case, there is no question that Williams cannot proceed
under § 2241. Thus, no certificate will issue.
ORDERED that the federal habeas corpus petition filed by
Anthony Williams pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED
and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
certificate of appealability will issue. The clerk of court
is directed to close this case.
 The court has substituted the name of
the current warden. See Rule 2(a) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases; ...