United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. WILHOIT JUDGE.
inmate Michael Dale Smith has filed a pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. [D. E. No. 1] This matter is before the
Court to conduct the initial screening of the petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Alexander v. Northern
Bureau of Prisons, 419 Fed.Appx. 544, 545 (6th Cir.
2011). The Court affords Smith's petition a liberal
construction 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.
December 2008, Smith and five other men were charged with two
dozen criminal counts for their role in a scheme to defraud
investors in oil and gas leases. Following exhaustive pre-
and post-trial proceedings and a four-week jury trial, Smith
was found guilty on numerous counts and was sentenced in July
2011 to 120 months imprisonment. United States v.
Smith, No. 08-CR-31-JMH-1 (E.D. Ky. 2008). The Sixth
Circuit affirmed Smith's convictions and sentences on
direct appeal in an extensive opinion. United States v.
Smith, 749 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2014).
then filed several pro se post-trial motions,
including a motion to vacate his conviction filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. Through these motions, he challenged
the validity of the indictment returned against him,
contending amongst other things that the government did not
present a "True Bill" to the grand jury. The trial
court held that this claim was factually and legally
baseless, also noting that it was procedurally defaulted
because Smith failed to assert it on direct appeal.
United States v. Smith, No. 3: 15-CV-7407-JMH-HAI,
2016 WL 11214429 (E.D. Ky. June 22, 2016), report and
recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 2766099 (E.D. Ky. June
26, 2017). The Sixth Circuit declined to grant a certificate
of appealability, holding that no reasonable jurist could
dispute that conclusion. Smith v. United States, No.
17-5798 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2017). In April 2018, the Sixth
Circuit also declined Smith's request for permission to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion to reassert
his challenge to the allegedly defective indictment. In
re: Smith, No 17-6475 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018). Smith
renewed this claim in correspondence to another judge of this
Court in October 2018. United States v. Smith, No.
08-CR-31-JMH-1 (E.D. Ky. 2008) [D. E. No. 989 therein].
§ 2241 petition, Smith repeats his argument that he was
"falsely convicted and imprisoned" because the
grand jury declined to indict him and did not return a true
bill. He also alleges that the jury foreperson went to high
school with the prosecutor. Smith seeks release from
incarceration and damages for false imprisonment and chronic
lung disease. [D. E. No. 1 at Page ID #4-5, 8]
Court does not reach the merits of these arguments because
Smith's claims are not of the kind that may be pursued in
a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A federal
prisoner must present a challenge to the legality of his
federal conviction or sentence by filing 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). A habeas
corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may
generally not be used for this purpose because it does not
function as an additional or alternative remedy to the one
available under § 2255. Hernandez v. Lamanna,
16 Fed.Appx. 317, 320 (6th Cir. 2001).
claims are claims of ordinary trial error that cannot be
pursued under § 2241 because the remedies afforded by
direct appeal and a motion under § 2255 are not
"inadequate and ineffective" to assert them.
Perez-Ortiz, 2018 WL 5734583, at *2 (6th Cir. July
6, 2018) (noting that relief under § 2241 is unavailable
where "the grounds for relief raised in the petition
were merely reassertions of issues that Perez-Ortiz had
already unsuccessfully raised in his § 2255 motion or
were claims of trial error that should have been raised on
direct appeal or in his § 2255 motion.");
Vassell v. Perez, 53 Fed.Appx. 348 (6th Cir. 2002);
Jameson v. Samuels, 555 Fed.Appx. 743, 746 (10th
Cir. 2014); Donnell v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
Michael Dale Smith's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [D. E. No. 1] is
action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the
 Smith did not pay the $5.00 filing fee
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or file a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. Smith must pay the required fee