United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Ashland
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. WLLHOIT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Martin Delaney is an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Ashland, Kentucky. Proceeding without a
lawyer, Delaney filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [D. E. No. 1]. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Delaney's
2013, Delaney pled guilty to distributing child pornography,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). See United
States v. Delaney, No. 1:13-cr-019 (S.D. Ind. 2013). The
trial court sentenced Delaney to 188 months in prison.
See Id. at D. E. No. 55. Delaney then unsuccessfully
sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Id.
at D.E. No. 71.
has now filed a § 2241 petition with this Court. [D. E.
No. 1]. Delaney argues, among other things, that (1)
"FBI agents, and other unknown officials, and my
court-appointed public defender, violated my constitutional
rights while I was being prosecuted for my crime;" (2)
he was denied his "constitutional rights allowed the
Court to lose its jurisdiction;" (3) "FBI agents
violated my Fourth Amendment by conducting a warrantless
arrest;" and (4) "my Miranda rights were
never read to me which resulted in me self-incriminating
myself, in violation of my Fifth Amendment." [D. E. No.
1 at 3-5]. These are just a few of the arguments that Delaney
puts forth in his petition. [D. E. No. 1 at 5-9; D. E. No.
1-1 at 10-26]. Ultimately, Delaney asks this Court to dismiss
his underlying criminal case with prejudice. [D. E. No. 1-1
initial matter, Delaney waived his right to collaterally
attack his underlying conviction and sentence. Indeed,
Delaney specifically said in his plea agreement that he
"expressly agrees not to contest the conviction or
sentence or the manner in which it was determined in
any collateral attack, including, but not limited
to, an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255."
See United States v. Delaney, No. 1:13-cr-019 at D.
E. No. 31 at 8. (S.D. Ind. 2013) (emphasis added). This broad
waiver precludes the arguments that Delaney makes in this
case. After all, "[i]t is well-settled that a knowing
and voluntary waiver of a collateral attack is
enforceable." Slusser v. United States, 895
F.3d 437, 439 (6th Cir. 2018); see also Ewing v.
Sepanek, No. 0:14-cv-111-HRW (E.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2015);
Solis-Caceres v. Sepanek, No. 0:13-cv-021-HRW (E.D.
Ky. Aug. 6, 2013); Combs v. Hickey, No.
5:11-cv-012-JMH (E.D. Ky. Jan. 7, 2011). In short, Delaney is
barred from collaterally attacking his underlying conviction
and sentence in his habeas petition.
said, even if Delaney's collateral attack waiver was not
enforceable, his § 2241 petition would still constitute
an impermissible collateral attack on his conviction and
sentence. While a federal prisoner may challenge the legality
of his conviction and sentence in a § 2255 motion, he
generally may not do so in a § 2241 petition. See
United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir.
2001) (explaining the distinction between a § 2255
motion and a § 2241 petition). After all, a § 2241
petition is usually only a vehicle 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.
See Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442, 447 (6th
Cir. 2009). Simply put, Delaney cannot use a § 2241
petition as a way of challenging his underlying conviction
sure, there are limited exceptions under which federal
prisoners have been permitted to challenge the validity of
their convictions or sentences in a § 2241 petition.
However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit has explained that a prisoner can only proceed in
this manner if he can demonstrate that an intervening change
in statutory law establishes his actual innocence, see
Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 307-08 (6th Cir. 2012),
or shows that his sentence was improperly enhanced, see
Hill v. Masters, 836 F.3d 591, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2016).
In this case, Delaney has not made such a showing. Instead,
Delaney is asserting arguments that would have only been
proper in a § 2255 motion and, again, only if he had not
waived his collateral-attack rights. Simply put,
Delaney's arguments are not proper in a § 2241
it is ORDERED that:
1. Delaney's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is
2. This action is DISMISSED and
STRICKEN from the ...