United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Herndon, Judge
Leslie Antoine, who is currently incarcerated in the Federal
Correctional Institution in Marion, Illinois, filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (Doc. 1). In the Petition, he argues that his
federal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) should be
vacated because 18 U.S.C. § 2241 was enacted in
violation of Article I of the Constitution and thus is
invalid. (Doc. 1).
was convicted in 2001 of aggravated sexual abuse in the
Western District of Michigan. United States v.
Antoine, No. 1:00-cr-00272-JTN-1 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 17,
2001). He was sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment in the
custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Id.
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals, but the appeal was dismissed and his sentence and
conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2241 were not overturned.
Id. at Docs. 43, 48. Plaintiff has repeatedly
attempted to challenge his conviction ever since. He filed a
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Michigan. See Antoine v. United
States, No. 15-cv-909-JTN (W.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2015).
This action was unsuccessful. United States v.
Antoine, No. 1:00-cr-00272-JTN-1 at Doc. 54. He appealed
the denial of his § 2255 petition to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals, but this action was also unsuccessful.
See Id. at Doc. 57. Finally, he petitioned for a
writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, but
this petition was also denied. See Id. at Doc. 59.
of the Rules Governing Section 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
cases. After carefully reviewing DeCarlo's Petition, the
Court concludes that DeCarlo is not entitled to relief and
that his Petition must be dismissed.
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). Federal
prisoners may utilize § 2241, however, to challenge the
legality of a conviction or sentence in cases under the
“savings clause” of § 2255(e). The savings
clause allows a petitioner to bring a claim under §
2241, where he can show that a remedy under § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention. Id. See also United States v.
Prevatte, 300 F.3d 792, 798-99 (7th Cir. 2002).
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that §
2255 is only inadequate or ineffective when three
requirements are satisfied: 1) the petitioner relies on a new
case of statutory interpretation rather than a constitutional
decision; 2) the case was decided after his first § 2255
motion but is retroactive; and 3) the alleged error results
in a miscarriage of justice. See Brown v. Caraway,
719 F.3d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 2013); Brown v. Rios,
696 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2012). “‘Inadequate
or ineffective' means that ‘a legal theory that
could not have been presented under § 2255 establishes
the petitioner's actual innocence.'” Hill
v. Werlinger, 695 F.3d 644, 648 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing
Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir.
2002)); In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir.
grounds advanced by Petitioner do not rely on a change in the
law that occurred after his § 2255 motion was denied. In
fact, he brought the same arguments he brings in the instant
Petition in his § 2255 motion. His § 2255 motion on
this issue was denied because it “was not filed within
one year of the date ‘on which the facts supporting
[his] claim . . . could have been discovered, '”
since Petitioner “refers to actions . . . that occurred
thirty years ago” and “[t]he legislators'
actions are a matter of public record that would have been
discoverable at the time of Antoine's conviction in
2001.” (Doc. 1, pp. 10-11) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
2255(f)(4)). Petitioner has therefore not met the
requirements for bringing a § 2241 petition under the
David Antoine's Petition for habeas relief pursuant to
§ 2241 ...