The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
This case is before the Court on petitioner's writ of habeas corpus, which he filed on April 22, 2013. Petitioner, who is an inmate in the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois ("Greenville"), brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his conviction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Doc. 1). See United States v. Dierling, et al., Case No. 96-cr-00098 (E.D. Mo. 1996). Alternatively, he raises a challenge to his conviction under Rule 60(b)(6) (Doc. 1). For the reasons set forth below, this action shall be DISMISSED with prejudice.
Following a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty of conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. United States v. Dierling, et al., Case No. 96-cr-00098 (E.D. Mo. 1996) (Doc. 181). Judgment was entered in the criminal case on December 20, 1996 (Id., Doc. 237). Petitioner was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. He subsequently raised numerous challenges to his conviction through post-trial motions, filed as recently as 2010, all of which were denied on the merits (Id., Docs. 223, 299, 300). The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.*fn1 United States v. Dierling, 131 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 1997).
On May 3, 1999, petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. See Younger v. United States, Case No. 1999-cv-00705 (E.D. Mo. 1999) (Doc. 1). In his § 2255 motion, petitioner claimed that:
(1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by failing to disclose evidence favorable to the defense; (3) his conviction was obtained using perjured testimony; (4) the trial court failed to advise him of the penalties for the offense; and (5) the trial court imposed an illegal sentence based on a drug quantity that the court, not the jury, determined. The trial court denied the § 2255 motion on April 18, 2002 (Id., Doc. 21). Petitioner filed an application for a certificate of appealability, which was denied on August 19, 2002 (Id., Doc. 29). See Younger v. United States, Case No. 02-2636 (8th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court of Kansas. Younger v. Warden, Case No. 01-cv-03132 (D. Kan. 2001). In the petition, he challenged Missouri's jurisdiction to enforce a detainer. The court denied the petition as meritless (Id.).
Petitioner later filed a request for permission to file a successive habeas corpus petition.*fn2 Younger v. United States, Case No. 06-1299 (8th Cir. 2006). The Court of Appeals denied his request on April 20, 2006 (Id.). See United States v. Dierling, et al., Case No. 96-cr-00098 (E.D. Mo. 1996) (Doc. 298). He filed a petition for writ of mandamus on April 19, 2010, which was denied the following month (Id., Docs. 302, 304).
Undeterred, petitioner filed a "voluminous application" for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Younger v. Charles E. Samuels, Jr., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01885 (D.C. 2012). In the 810-page application, petitioner challenged his conviction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Id., Doc. 1). He claimed, "among other wrongs, 'fraud was perpetrated upon the [criminal] court' and 'defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. . .'" (Id., Doc. 3, p. 1). He sought a reversal of his conviction and a new trial (Id.). The petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on November 20, 2012 (Id.)
In the instant matter, petitioner again challenges his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1, p. 13). His application spans more than 300 pages. Petitioner claims, among other things, that: (1) the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct;*fn3 (2) the court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction to hear his criminal case;*fn4 (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel;*fn5 (3) the judges who considered his case were biased; and (4) he was denied due process and equal protection of the law*fn6 (Doc. 1, pp. 6-8). Petitioner seeks a reversal of his conviction or, alternatively, a new trial (Doc. 1, p. 13). He requests an order to show cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Alternatively, he asks this Court to consider his motion under Rule 60(b)(6).
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, "[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." Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases. After carefully reviewing the petition in the present case, the Court concludes that petitioner is not entitled to relief, and the petition must be dismissed.
Normally a person may challenge his federal conviction only by means of a motion brought before the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and this remedy normally supersedes the writ of habeas corpus. A § 2241 petition by a federal prisoner is generally limited to challenges to the execution of the sentence. Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998); Atehortua v. Kindt, 951 F.2d 126, 129 (7th Cir. 1991). However, a petition challenging the conviction may be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See also Waletski v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079, ...