Albert v. United States of America, No. 4:2008cv01813 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Petitioner's petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243. 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, Related document 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) filed by Charles E. Albert. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 09/11/08. (M,M)

Download PDF
Albert v. United States of America Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO CHARLES E. ALBERT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:08 CV 1813 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On July 28, 2008, petitioner pro se Charles E. Albert filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Albert seeks to challenge his 2006 convictions in this court. For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed. Habeas corpus petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 address the execution of a sentence, while motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 test the validity of a judgment and sentence. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998)(citing United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991)). By enacting section 2255, Congress essentially superseded the traditional habeas corpus remedy for federal prisoners. W. Yackle, Postconviction Remedies, § 31 (1981). Larry Section 2255 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 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 such as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 376 (2d Cir. 1997), or denial of a previously filed section 2255 motion. McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979). Rather, habeas corpus remains available when the failure to allow some form of collateral review would raise serious questions as to section 2255's constitutionality. Triestman, 124 F.3d at 377. The petitioner bears the burden of proving that the section 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. James S. Liebman, Randy Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 41.2b at 1188 (2d ed. 1994) (citing Thompson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir. 1983); McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979)). As petitioner challenges his criminal conviction, his only remedy is under section 2255. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 2 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/Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September 11, 2008 3

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.