United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
KEVIN LEE GRADY, No. 16001-040, Petitioner,
WARDEN TRUE, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Kevin Lee Grady is currently incarcerated in the United
States Penitentiary located at Marion, Illinois
(“USP-Marion”). He brings this habeas corpus
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Grady
challenges his conviction and sentence for bank fraud, wire
fraud, and making false statements to a federal official in
United States v. Grady, No. 11-cr-00131-RJJ-2 (W.D.
Mi.) (“criminal case”). He asks this Court to
vacate his sentence on jurisdictional and due process
grounds. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6, 8-25).
argues that the financial institution he was convicted of
defrauding did not qualify as a federally insured
“financial institution” under 18 U.S.C. § 20
until the legal definition of “financial
institution” changed several years after he did
business with the institution. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-25). Further, a
misunderstanding about which institution he used resulted in
his wrongful conviction. Id.
not the first time that Grady has brought this challenge to
his conviction and sentence. He has already pursued this
claim unsuccessfully on three or more prior occasions under
28 U.S.C. § 2255, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and in related
appeals. Grady is foreclosed from doing so again here, based
on his new understanding of subject matter jurisdiction and
Grady has previously been advised, § 2241 is not a
vehicle for appealing an adverse decision on a § 2255
motion or a § 2241 petition. It certainly is not an
appropriate vehicle for appealing an unfavorable decision
from the Court of Appeals. Grady nevertheless returns to this
Court seeking relief under § 2241 based on the same
arguments that have already been rejected.
§ 2241 Petition shall be dismissed with prejudice. In
addition, Grady is WARNED that he will be
subject to sanctions for any future attempts to reassert
foreclosed or frivolous claims in a federal habeas petition
in this District.
was the leader of a complex scheme aimed at defrauding
numerous banks of millions of dollars in connection with
mortgage loans. He was found guilty of bank fraud, wire
fraud, and making false statements to a federal official
following a nine-day jury trial that began on February 7,
2012. See United States v. Grady, No.
11-cr-00131-RJJ-2 (W.D. Mi. 2012) (“criminal
case”). Grady was sentenced to 168 months of
imprisonment, 4 years of supervised release, and $3, 086,
195.06 in restitution. (Doc. 174, criminal case). The Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and
sentence. United States v. Grady, App. No. 12-1788
(6th Cir. July 31, 2013).
filed a timely motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on January 13,
2014. Grady v. United States, No. 14-cv-00038-RJJ
(W.D. Mi. 2014) (“§ 2255 Motion”). In the
§ 2255 Motion, he raised the following arguments, which
were summarized by the district court, as follows:
Mr. Grady's claims, many of which overlap, fall into four
general categories: (1) challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence; (2) challenges to his convictions and restitution
based on his lenders' sale of loans on the secondary
market; (3) challenges to his conviction for bank
fraud (Count 20) based on his assertion that Key Bank, N.A.,
was not a “financial institution” as defined in
18 U.S.C. § 20.5; (4) challenges based on alleged
ineffective assistance of counsel for (i) failing to
investigate the charges against him adequately; (ii) failing
to present evidence and argue at trial that Mr. Grady was not
guilty of wire fraud because the fraudulent loans had been
sold on the secondary market; (iii) failing to
present at trial evidence that Key Bank, N.A. was not a
“financial institution” as defined in 18 U.S.C.
§ 20; and (iv) failing to challenge the
evidentiary value of certain of the appraisals the government
introduced in support of its extensive case.
(Doc. 18, pp. 3-4, § 2255 Motion) (emphasis added). The
§ 2255 Motion was denied in all respects. Id.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also denied a certificate
of appealability. Grady v. United States, No.
14-2568 (6th Cir. June 19, 2015).
sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in
this District on March 17, 2016. Grady v. Baird, No.
16-cv-00285-DRH (S.D. Ill. 2016) (§ 2241 Petition). In
the § 2241 Petition, he reasserted all of the same
claims that were unsuccessful in his initial § 2255
Motion. (Doc. 1, § 2241 Petition). This Court dismissed
the § 2241 Petition with prejudice. (Doc. 6, § 2241
Petition). Grady appealed the decision, and the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decision,
stating: “[A]s the district court held, a § 2241
action cannot function as an appeal of another court's
decision. Grady did not show that § 2255 is inadequate
to remedy his claims.” Grady v. Baird, App.
No. 16-2163 (7th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (Doc. 19-1, § 2241
subsequently filed three applications for leave to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion on April 10, 2017,
November 20, 2017, and April 9, 2018, respectively. (Docs.
24-26, § 2255 Motion). The Sixth Circuit denied all
three applications. Id. The instant § 2241