United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner
Richard Alan Arledge (“Arledge”) (#16769-078).
Arledge is an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Pollock,
Arledge's claim does not arise under § 2241, and he
cannot meet the requirements of the savings clause of 28
U.S.C. § 2255, his Petition (Doc. 1) should be DISMISSED
for lack of jurisdiction.
was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and
was sentenced to a total of 188 months of imprisonment.
United States v. Arledge, 524 Fed.Appx. 83 (5th Cir.
2013). His conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Id.; cert. denied, 571 U.S. 890 (2013).
filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255, which was denied. Arledge v. United States,
4:09-cr-89, 2016 WL 3277281 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2016). The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied
Arledge's motion for certificate of appealability because
Arledge could not make “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” United States v.
Arledge, 873 F.3d 471, 473 (5th Cir. 2017).
filed a motion for authorization to file a successive §
2255 petition, contending that “the district court was
without jurisdiction to convict him because the Assistant
United States Attorneys who prosecuted his case were not duly
appointed and did not take oaths of office as required by the
Appointments Clause of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. §
542(a).” (Case: 18-40879, Document 00514727575, 5th
Cir. 11/16/18). The motion was denied. Id.
Law and Analysis
federal prisoner may challenge his sentence under either
§§ 2241 or 2255. Though closely related, these two
provisions are “distinct mechanisms for seeking
post-conviction relief.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218
F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000).
§ 2241 petition may be filed by a prisoner challenging
the manner in which his sentence is being executed. See
Reyes-Requena v. U.S., 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir.
2001) (citing Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688, 694
(5th Cir. 2000)). In contrast, a § 2255 motion should be
used to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence based on
errors that occurred at or prior to sentencing. See Cox
v. Warden, Federal Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113
(5th Cir. 1990) (citing United States v. Flores, 616
F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir. 1980)). The claims that are
cognizable under § 2255 are broadly defined to include
allegations that “judgment was rendered without
jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized
by law . . . or that there has been such a denial or
infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as
to render the judgment vulnerable.” 28 U.S.C. §
claims that his conviction and sentence are invalid because
the court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. Therefore,
his claim arises under § 2255, which must be brought in
the court of conviction. Arledge previously filed a §
2255 motion in that court, which was denied and dismissed.
Arledge v. United States, 4:09-cr-89, 2016 WL
3277281 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2016). Therefore, he cannot file
another § 2255 motion without authorization from the
requested authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a
successive § 2255 motion on the same grounds presented
in this § 2241 Petition (Case: 18-40879, Document
00514727575, 5th Cir. 11/16/18). The Fifth Circuit denied
authorization “[b]ecause Arledge does not identify any
newly discovered evidence of innocence or a new rule of
constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court to
cases on collateral review . . . .” Id.
2255 contains a “savings clause” provision, which
is a limited exception to the rule that a § 2241
petition may not be used to challenge the validity of a
federal sentence and conviction. See Pack, 218 F.3d
at 452. The clause allows a prisoner to rely on § 2241
if the remedy available under § 2255 would be
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The petitioner