United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division
TYRONE L. HUTCHERSON, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C REEVES, CHIEF JUDGE
inmate Tyrone Hutcherson has filed a pro se petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Hutcherson contends that he was denied due process of
law when he was forced to wear leg shackles in the jury's
presence during his three-day criminal trial, and that his
attorney provided ineffective assistance when she did not
object to the practice or move for a mistrial when the jury
convicted him. [Record No. 1] The Court must review the
petition before proceeding further in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 2243. Alexander v. Northern Bureau of
Prisons, 419 Fed.Appx. 544, 545 (6th Cir.
was indicted in Amarillo, Texas in June 2008 on two counts of
bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The
trial court imposed two concurrent sentences of 240 months
imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of both offenses
in January 2010. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in January 2011.
United States v. Hutcherson, No. 2: 08-CR-00044-D-1
(N.D. Tex. 2008). Hutcherson then sought to vacate his
conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
asserting 14 grounds for relief, but his present claim
regarding wearing leg shackles during the trial was not among
these claims. The trial court denied the motion in 2013.
Hutcherson v. United States, No. 2: 11-CV-00270-J-BB
(N.D. Tex. 2011).
Court will deny the petition because Hutcherson may not
pursue his claims in a habeas corpus petition under §
2241. A federal prisoner must challenge the legality of his
conviction or sentence by filing a motion with the trial
court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Capaldi v.
Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 2003). A federal
prisoner may generally file a habeas corpus petition under
Section 2241 only to challenge a decision by prison officials
that affects the manner in which his sentence is being
carried out, such as the computation of sentence credits or
parole eligibility. United States v. Jalili, 925
F.2d 889, 894 (6th Cir. 1999).
narrow exception to this rule permits a petitioner to
challenge his conviction in a § 2241 petition, but only
if he can demonstrate that he is “actually
innocent” of committing the underlying criminal
offense. He can make this showing where, after his conviction
became final, the Supreme Court re-interprets the substantive
terms of the criminal statute under which he was convicted in
a manner that establishes that his conduct did not violate
the statute. Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 307-08
(6th Cir. 2012). Hutcherson's claims do not satisfy
Wooten's standard. While he contends that he was
denied a fair trial and the effective assistance of counsel,
these claims are not based upon new decisions of statutory
interpretation, but are instead constitutional claims arising
under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Such claims do not fall
within the narrow scope of the savings clause, and must be
asserted - if at all - by motion under Section 2255. See
Mans v. Young, 36 Fed.Appx. 766, 767-68 (6th Cir.
2002) (ineffective assistance of counsel claim may not be
pursued in Section 2241 petition where defendant could have
but did not assert claim in prior Section 2255 motion). The
fact that Hutcherson did not assert his present claims in his
first § 2255 motion does not permit him to present those
arguments now in a § 2241 petition. Copeland v.
Hemingway, 36 Fed.Appx. 793, 795 (6th Cir. 2002). And
even supposing Hutcherson's claims have merit, they do
not establish that he did not commit the offense for which he
stands convicted and, therefore, do not fit within the scope
of the savings clause. Truss v. Davis, 115 Fed.Appx.
772, 773-74 (6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, it is hereby
Hutcherson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Record
No. 1] is DENIED.
action is DISMISSED and
STRICKEN from the Court's docket.
 A petition 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 Hutcherson'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)).
 Hutcherson had previously pleaded
guilty in Kansas to trafficking in methamphetamine and
carrying a firearm in furtherance of that offense. United
States v. Hutcherson, No. 5: 97-CR-40082-HLT-1 (D. Kan.
1997). A decade later he pleaded guilty to escaping from a
halfway house. United States v. Hutcherson, No. 2:
07-CR-20131-CM-1 (D. Kan. 2007). The latter conviction ...