IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL MAHONEY, : CIVIL NO. 3:15-CV-1655

 :

Petitioner :

 : (Judge Munley) 

v. :

 :

DAVID J. EBBERT, :

 :

Respondent :

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 MEMORANDUM

Presently before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by petitioner Michael Mahoney (“Mahoney”), a federal inmate

incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Preliminary

review of the petition has been undertaken, see R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R.4,

1

 and, for the

reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

I. Background

Mahoney alleges that on August 21, 2009, he was indicted in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on the following charges: 21 U.S.C. §

841(A)(1); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(b); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(c);

21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). (Doc. 3, p. 1).

1Rule 4 provides “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits

that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the

petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” See R. Governing § 2254 CASES R.4. 

These rules are applicable to petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the discretion of the court. 

Id. at R.1(b).

Case 3:15-cv-01655-JMM-EBC Document 5 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 5
He pled guilty to all six counts and was sentenced to a 322 months of incarceration “[d]ue

partly to Enhancement of Career Offender Status.” (Id.) 

Mahoney filed the instant petition on August 26, 2015. (Doc. 1). He seeks to have his

judgment vacated based on the holding in the recent Supreme Court of the United States case

of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. — , 135 S.Ct. 2551(2015) (finding that an increased

sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) violated the

Constitution). (Doc. 3, p. 1). 

II. Discussion

Challenges to the legality of federal convictions or sentences that are allegedly in

violation of the Constitution may generally be brought only in the district of sentencing

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing

Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 342 (1974)); see In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d

Cir. 1997). Once relief is sought via section 2255, an individual is prohibited from filing a

second or subsequent 2255 petition unless the request for relief is based on “newly

discovered evidence” or a “new rule of constitutional law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C.

2244(3)(A). 

Review of a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is limited to circumstances

where the remedy by motion under § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective to test the

legality of detention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see Okereke, 307 F. 3d at 120; see Dorsainvil,

119 F.3d at 251-52. Section 2255 may be inadequate or ineffective when a federal prisoner 

is in an unusual position of having no earlier opportunity to challenge his conviction or

2

Case 3:15-cv-01655-JMM-EBC Document 5 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 5
where he “is being detained for conduct that has subsequently been rendered noncriminal by

an intervening Supreme Court decision.” Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251–52. Conversely,

“[s]ection 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not

grant relief, the one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet

the stringent gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255.” Cradle v. United States, 290

F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d

643, 647 (3d Cir. 2000); Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. “If a prisoner attempts to challenge his

conviction or sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the habeas petition must be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction.” Id., citing Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971)

(“Section 2255 has made the sentencing court the exclusive forum for challenge to the

validity of a conviction and sentence.”) See also United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648

(3d Cir. 1999) (observing that “federal courts have long recognized that they have an

obligation to look behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine

whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework”). 

In the instant petition, Mahoney seeks relief via § section 2241 because he submitted a

motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) and was denied relief. (Doc. 3, p. 2). He relies on the

recent United States Supreme Court case of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. — , 135 S.Ct.

2551 (2015). (Doc. 2, p. 1). In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court held that the

“residual claims” of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of

Due Process due to vagueness. Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2563. However, because he is

ultimately challenging his conviction and sentence, his claims are controlled by 28 U.S.C. §

3

Case 3:15-cv-01655-JMM-EBC Document 5 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 5
2255. See Wallace v. Bledsoe, No. 1:1-CV-132, 2011 WL 766641, * 3 (M.D. Pa. 2011)

(Jones, J.) (finding that the petitioner’s claim that a prior conviction was improperly used to

enhance his sentence must be brought by way of section 2255); Pryce v. Scism, Civil No.

1:10-cv-1680, 2011 WL 41883, *4 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (Jones, J.) (concluding that section 2255,

not section 2241, is the appropriate section to address Pryce’s claim, that he is actually

innocent of being a career criminal because his prior state convictions should not have been

considered to enhance his current federal sentence, and explaining that innocence of a

sentence enhancement is not the same as actual innocence of the underlying criminal offense

such that the remedy afforded by section 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective).

Accordingly, the instant petition is subject to dismissal. 

 Nor can Mahoney obtain review under section 2241 based on an argument that he is

actually innocent because such an argument seeks relief from sentencing as an armed career

criminal, as opposed to being factually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. 

Courts that have considered this argument have recognized that one is not convicted of being

an “armed career criminal.” Rather, this status is utilized as a basis to enhance a federal

sentence. Therefore, innocence of a sentence enhancement is not the same as actual

innocence of the underlying criminal offense such that the remedy afforded by §2255 would

be inadequate or ineffective. Accord United States v. Brown, 456 F. App’x 79, 81 (3d Cir.

2012) (per curiam) (stating “[w]e have held that § 2255's ‘safety valve’ applies only in rare

circumstances, such as when an intervening change in the statute under which the petitioner

was convicted renders the petitioner’s conduct non-criminal. Brown has not satisfied that

4

Case 3:15-cv-01655-JMM-EBC Document 5 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 5
standard here, as he makes no allegation that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he

was convicted, but instead asserts only that he is ‘innocent’ of being a career offender.”); see

also, Selby v. Scism, 453 F. App’x 266, 268 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding “Selby does not argue

that he is innocent of the offense for which he was convicted; he argues that he is ‘innocent’

of a [career offender] sentencing enhancement because of an intervening change in law. 

Accordingly the exception described in In re Dorsainvil does not apply.”). 

Significantly, Mahoney does not indicate that he has presented the issue he raises in

this petition in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. 

The remedy afforded under § 2241 is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy

to that prescribed under § 2255. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the above stated reasons, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Mahoney’s

petition. Therefore, the petition will be dismissed. Notably, dismissal will be without

prejudice to Mahoney’s ability to take any action he deems appropriate under § 2255 to

preserve and present his issues in a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct his sentence. 

An appropriate order will issue. 

BY THE COURT:

s/James M. Munley

JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY

United States District Court

Dated: November 2, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-01655-JMM-EBC Document 5 Filed 11/02/15 Page 5 of 5