Penson v. United States of America, No. 1:2013cv01152 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2013)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order that the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (a) (3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 8/30/2013. (B,B)

Download PDF
Penson v. United States of America Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO GEORGE WASHINGTON PENSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:13 CV 1152 JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On May 22, 2013, petitioner pro se George Washington Penson III, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary at Hazelton, filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action. While the petition and other documents filed by Penson are unclear, he appears to be seeking to challenge his conviction and sentence in this court. U.S. v. Penson, 4:03 CR 193. A challenge to a federal prisoner’s judgment or sentence must generally be brought, if at all, as a post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998)(citing United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991)). Section 2255 provides in pertinent part: [a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in 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. Dockets.Justia.com The terms "inadequate" or "ineffective" do not mean that habeas corpus relief is available whenever a federal prisoner faces a substantive or procedural barrier to § 2255 relief, including the denial of a previously filed section 2255 motion. Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999). Rather, the “savings clause” applies when the failure to allow some form of collateral review would raise “serious constitutional questions.” Frost v. Snyder, 13 Fed.Appx. 243, 248 (6th Cir. 2001)(unpublished disposition)(quoting Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 376 (2d Cir. 1997)). The petitioner bears the burden of proving that the section 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Charles, 180 F.3d at 756 (citing McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979)). Further, even if Penson believes, despite the foregoing authority, that habeas corpus is an appropriate vehicle to seek his release, such an action must be brought in the district court having jurisdiction over his custodian. United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir.1991); Cohen v. United States, 593 F.2d 766, 770-71 (6th Cir.1979); Wright v. United States Bd. of Parole, 557 F.2d 74, 76-77 (6th Cir.1977). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and this action is dismissed. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Donald C. Nugent 8/30/13 DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.