United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. LUNGSTRUM U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Petitioner, a prisoner in federal custody,
proceeds pro se and submitted the filing fee.
2010, petitioner was convicted in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on seven counts of domestic
terrorism offenses. United States v. Cromitie, et
al., 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2013)(affirming convictions
of petitioner and co-defendants). The U.S. Supreme Court
denied their separate petitions for certiorari in 2014.
See, e.g., Williams v. U.S., 135 S.Ct. 54 (2014).
then unsuccessfully sought relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255,
claiming, in his initial motion, entrapment and selective
prosecution based upon his religion; and in an addendum, that
he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Williams
v. United States, 2017 WL 4326050 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 19,
2007), appeal dismissed (2d Cir., Dec. 14, 2017).
action, petitioner asserts that there was no federal
jurisdiction is his case. At Ground One, he states: “My
arrest was not privileged to the United States of America,
and my subsequent conviction violated the narrow-federal
state balance. See United States v. Fenton, 10 F.Supp. 2d 501
(W.D. Pa. 1998).” (Doc. #4, p. 5.) As supporting
facts, petitioner states: “I was arrested and charged
by the Federal Bureau of Investigations. I was prosecuted in
the United States District Court for the
obtain habeas corpus relief, a petitioner must show that
“[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). A federal prisoner who challenges the
validity of a federal conviction after the conclusion of
direct appeal ordinarily must proceed under a motion filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district of conviction. In
contrast, a federal prisoner may file a petition under §
2241 in the district of incarceration to challenge the
execution of a sentence. Brace v. United States, 634
F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011).
claim alleging a lack of federal jurisdiction in his criminal
case does not implicate the execution of his sentence;
rather, it is a challenge to the validity of his conviction.
noted, a motion under § 2255 is the primary remedy for a
federal prisoner to attack the validity of a conviction or
sentence. See Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 581
(10th Cir. 2011). In “rare circumstances, a
prisoner may attack his underlying conviction by bringing a
§ 2241 habeas corpus application under the saving clause
in § 2255(e).” Hale v. Fox, 829
F3d 1162, 115 (10th Cir. 2016)(citation and
“[t]o invoke the saving clause, there must be something
about the initial § 2255 procedure that itself is
inadequate or ineffective for testing a challenge to
detention.” Prost, 636 F.3d at 589. The fact
that a petitioner was unsuccessful in a motion filed under
§ 2255 is not sufficient to satisfy the savings clause,
which guarantees process, not results. Id. In the
Tenth Circuit, absent a showing that the remedy under §
2255 is inadequate or ineffective, a district court has no
statutory jurisdiction over a motion filed under § 2241.
Prost, 636 F.3d at 590.
suggests no reason why the motion remedy under § 2255
was inadequate or ineffective, and his bare claim of actual
innocence does not bring his motion under § 2241 within
the scope of the savings clause. Abernathy v.
Wandes, 713 F.3d 538, 548 n. 7 (10th Cir.
2013)(“Under the Prost framework, a showing of
actual innocence is irrelevant.”).
considered the record, the Court concludes it lacks statutory
jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion under § 2241
and that the petition must be dismissed on that basis.
THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED the petition is dismissed for