Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00089/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00089-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

WESTERN DIVISION 

 

JAMES V. WALLACE PETITIONER 

REG. #36156-060 

v. Case No. 2:16-CV-089 BRW-JTK 

C.V. RIVERA, Warden, 

FCI Forrest City Medium RESPONDENT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court 

Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. 

Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the 

objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports 

your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the 

United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings 

and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

Case 2:16-cv-00089-BRW Document 9 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 5
2 

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such 

a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate 

Judge. 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before 

the District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, 

of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be 

introduced at the hearing before the District Judge. 

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary 

hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. 

 Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

DISPOSITION 

This matter is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge of the District Court 

on the petition of federal prisoner James V. Wallace for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. (DE #1) Petitioner’s federal sentence derives from a guilty plea in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in 1997, where he received a 200-month 

sentence for bank robbery and armed bank robbery and a sixty-month (60) sentence for use of a 

firearm in relation to a crime of violence, consecutively. (DE #6-1) In this § 2241 petition, 

Wallace asserts that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 

__U.S.__, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the enhancement of his sentence is unconstitutional and his 

sentence should be vacated and remanded for resentencing under the “proper law, which will result 

in my immediate release.” (DE #1 at 3, 8) Respondent contends the petition should be dismissed 

because this Court lacks subject matter to entertain the petition under § 2241. (DE # 6, at 2) In his 

Case 2:16-cv-00089-BRW Document 9 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 5
3 

Reply, Petitioner acknowledges that after filing his petition in this Court “it became known to him 

that an avenue for relief may be available through the filing of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion in the U.S. 

District Court in the Northern District of Ohio.” (DE # 8 at 1) Petitioner further contends that at 

the time of his Reply, his “28 U.S.C. 2255 motion is being held in abeyance pending the outcome 

of a motion filed in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking permission to file a second or 

successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner requests that this Court hold his § 

2241 petition in abeyance “until such time that the other motions mentioned above are 

adjudicated.” (DE # 8, at 1-2) For the reasons that follow, the Court agrees with Respondent and 

finds that the petition should be denied and dismissed without prejudice. 

 Petitioner is not entitled to use this § 2241 proceeding to challenge the validity of his 

current federal sentence. Petitioner is incarcerated in this judicial district, but this is not the district 

where his federal conviction and sentence arose. Issues concerning the lawfulness of a federal 

conviction and the sentence imposed generally must be brought in the sentencing court through a 

§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct. Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 

2004); see § 2255 ¶ 1 (a federal prisoner “may move the court which imposed the sentence” to 

vacate, set aside or correct the sentence). Because a § 2255 motion attacks the validity of the 

conviction or sentence, it is “a further step in the movant’s criminal case,” and subject matter 

jurisdiction lies with the court that convicted and sentenced him. DeSimone v. Lacy, 805 F.2d 321, 

323 (8th Cir. 1986). In contrast, a § 2241 habeas corpus petition attacks the execution of a 

sentence, or the manner in which the sentence is being carried out, and it is within the subject 

matter jurisdiction of the court presiding in the judicial district where the prisoner is incarcerated. 

Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 711-12 (8th Cir. 2002); DeSimone, 805 F.2d at 323. It is not 

disputed that the claims within Petitioner’s current petition in this Court are challenging the 

Case 2:16-cv-00089-BRW Document 9 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 5
4 

validity of his conviction or sentence as imposed. See DE #1, at 2. Therefore, his claims must be 

directed to the Ohio district court that convicted and sentenced him or to the appropriate Court of 

Appeals (in this case, the Sixth Circuit). 

 No court has jurisdiction to hear such a challenge under § 2241 unless the petitioner has 

affirmatively demonstrated that the remedy provided by § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to 

test the legality of . . . [his] detention.” DeSimone, 805 F.2d at 323 (quoting § 2255). The 

“inadequate or ineffective remedy” exception is sometimes called the “savings clause,” Abdullah, 

392 F.3d at 959, because when it applies, it can save a § 2241 habeas from being dismissed under 

the § 2255 exclusive remedy rule. Here, Petitioner is clearly challenging the validity of the 

sentence that was imposed by the Ohio federal court. Such challenge is appropriate under § 2255, 

and as previously discussed, Petitioner’s § 2255 motion is being held in abeyance pending 

resolution of his motion filed in the Sixth Circuit seeking an order authorizing the sentencing court 

to consider a second or successive § 2255 motion. 

 Petitioner has requested for this Court to hold this petition in abeyance until the abovereferenced motions have been adjudicated in Ohio federal court; however, the Petitioner cannot 

satisfy the requirements for this court to adjudicate his § 2241 petition with the pending motions 

he has in Ohio federal courts. Furthermore, even if the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denies his 

motion to consider a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Eighth Circuit has 

expressly confirmed that § 2255 will not be viewed as inadequate or ineffective “merely because 

§ 2255 relief has already been denied, or because petitioner has been denied permission to file a 

second or successive § 2255 motion, or because a second or successive § 2255 motion has been 

dismissed[.]” United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal citations 

omitted); see also Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003) (concluding that “in order 

Case 2:16-cv-00089-BRW Document 9 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 5
5 

to establish a remedy is ‘inadequate or ineffective’ under § 2255, there must be more than a 

procedural barrier to bringing a § 2255 petition”). 

 In summary, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the § 2241 claims 

because Petitioner has not demonstrated that the § 2255 remedy is ineffective or inadequate. 

Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 964. Accordingly, it is recommended that this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for 

habeas corpus (DE #1) be denied and dismissed without prejudice. 

 SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2017. 

 ____________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00089-BRW Document 9 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 5