United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
OPINION AND ORDER
O'CONNOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No.1) by petitioner
Juan Albert Coronado (“Coronado”), a federal
prisoner confined at FMC-Fort Worth in Fort Worth, Texas, and
the Warden's response (ECF No. 6). After considering the
relief sought by Petitioner, the record, related briefing,
and applicable law, the Court concludes that Coronado's
§ 2241 petition should be and is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
was convicted in this the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, in Cause Number 4:14-cr-078-O
(38), of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a
controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,
and sentenced to a 97-month term imprisonment. J., No.
4:14-cr-078-O (38), ECF No. 1550; Statement of Reasons,
No.4:14-cr-078-O(38), ECF No. 1551. Coronado did not file a
direct appeal, and he did not seek relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. Instead, Coronado filed the instant petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. 1, ECF No. 1.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
challenges this Court's sentence calculations, contending
that the Court used the wrong advisory guideline range, that
the guideline range should have been 10-16 months because he
did not admit to any amount of methamphetamine, and that
there was no evidence to associate him with any specific
amount. Pet. 2-3, 5, 8, ECF No.1. He also alleges there was
no factual basis for his guilty plea. Id. at 7.
motion under § 2255 is the primary means of collaterally
attacking a federal conviction or sentence. Jeffers v.
Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001) (per curiam)
(citing Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th
Cir.2000) (per curiam)). “While § 2241 is more
typically used to challenge the execution of a prisoner's
sentence, a federal prisoner may bring a petition under
§ 2241 to challenge the legality of his conviction or
sentence if he can satisfy the mandates of the ‘savings
clause' of § 2255.” Christopher v.
Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01
(5th Cir. 2001)). The statutory “savings clause”
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in [sic] behalf of
a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion
pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it
appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by
motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court
has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy
by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
of his detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Under the “savings clause,
” the petitioner has the burden of showing that the
§ 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention.” Jeffers,
253 F.3d at 830.
fails to show that the § 2255 remedy is either
inadequate or ineffective to the test the legality of his
detention. Coronado cannot rely on § 2241 merely because
he might now be limited in seeking relief under § 2255.
Cf. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir.
2000) (citing Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 878) (holding
that neither a prior, unsuccessful § 2255 motion, the
limitations bar, nor successiveness renders the § 2255
remedy inadequate or ineffective). Moreover, the Fifth
Circuit has determined that, before a petitioner may pursue
relief through § 2241 under the language of the §
2255 savings clause, he must show that:
(1) his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme
Court decision; (2) the Supreme Court decision establishes
that he was “actually innocent” of the charges
against him because the decision decriminalized the conduct
for which he was convicted; and (3) his claim would have been
foreclosed by existing circuit precedent had he raised it at
trial, on direct appeal, or in his original § 2255
Christopher, 342 F.3d at 382 (citing
Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904 and Jeffers,
253 F.3d at 830).
case, Coronado has not made these showings, and a review of
the grounds asserted in his § 2241 petition shows that
he cannot make them. Coronado does not claim or attempt to
demonstrate that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense.
Although Coronado includes a claim that there was “no
factual basis for his guilty plea” (Pet. 7, ECF No.1),
such claim does not challenge the viability of the ...