United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MARLON D. QUARLES, Petitioner,
FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. REEVES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Marlon Quarles has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Record No. 1] The
matter is before the Court for initial screening pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2243. Alexander v. Northern Bureau of
Prisons, 419 Fed.Appx. 544, 545 (6th Cir.
relief being requested will be denied “if it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant
to Rule 1(b)). The Court evaluates Quarles's petition
under a more lenient standard because he is not represented
by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007); Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 84-85 (6th
Cir. 1985) (noting that “allegations of a pro se habeas
petition, though vague and conclusory, are entitled to a
liberal construction” including “active
interpretation” toward encompassing “any
allegation stating federal relief”) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
makes four claims in his petition. He first contends that,
when he was sentenced in January 2017 for violating the terms
of his supervised release in United States v.
Quarles, No. 2:14-CR-20068-JPM-1 (W.D. Tenn. 2014), the
trial court acted in a manner contrary to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines by ordering the three 14-month terms of
imprisonment to be served consecutively rather than
concurrently. Second, he asserts that the trial court
violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by using the same facts
to find him in violation of his supervised release as those
previously used to convict him of drug trafficking in
United States v. Quarles, No. 1: 16-CR-135-SNLJ-1
(E.D. Mo. 2016). Next, Quarles argues that his guilty plea in
the 2016 prosecution is void and unconstitutional because the
federal criminal statute under which he was prosecuted (i.e.,
18 U.S.C. § 841) “does not exist.” Finally,
Quarles alleges that the presentence investigation report (he
does specify for which case) was “false and
inadequate” in violation of Rule 32 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure. [Record No. 1 at 1-4]
Court will deny Quarles's petition because he may not
assert these claims in a § 2241 proceeding. A petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is reserved for challenges
to actions taken by prison officials that affect the manner
in which the prisoner's sentence is being carried out,
such as computing sentence credits or determining parole
eligibility. Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442,
447 (6th Cir. 2009). To challenge the legality of a federal
conviction or sentence, a prisoner must file a direct appeal
or a motion for post- conviction relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 in the court that convicted and sentenced him.
Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir.
2003). he may not use a habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 for this purpose, as it does not constitute an
additional or alternative remedy to the one available under
§ 2255. Hernandez v. Lamanna, 16 Fed.Appx. 317,
320 (6th Cir. 2001).
is a narrow exception to this rule for claims of
“actual innocence” based upon
retroactively-applicable Supreme Court decisions interpreting
the substantive reach of the statute of conviction.
Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 307-08 (6th Cir.
2012). However, the claims in Quarles's petition do not
fit within this exception as they merely assert claims of
ordinary trial error that could and, therefore, must have
been asserted on direct appeal or in a motion under §
2255. Cf. Holcomb v. Tamez, 464 Fed.Appx. 343 (5th
Cir. 2012); Bellomo v. United States, 344 F.Supp.2d
429 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
it is hereby
Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Francisco
Quintana, Warden of the Federal Medical Center, as the
respondent in this proceeding.
Petitioner Quarles's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Record No. 1] is
action is DISMISSED and
STRICKEN from the Court's docket.
 The Court will substitute Francisco
Quintana, the Warden of the Federal Medical Center in
Lexington, Kentucky, as the proper respondent in this
proceeding. Rumsfeld v. ...