United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James Humphreys,  on November 6, 2017, filed a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See Dkt. No. 1. The Court dismissed the petition on
January 24, 2018. See Dkt. No. 2. Presently before
the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment . For the reasons that follow, the Court will
DENY the motion .
was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm
after a jury trial in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. See United States v.
Humphreys, 468 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 2007). The district
court concluded that Humphreys had three prior felony
convictions for violent crimes; thus, on June 28, 2005, the
district court sentenced Petitioner to 15.5 years in prison
pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”), and to five years of supervised
release. Id. at 1052 (citing 18 U.S.C. §
924(e)(1)). Humphreys appealed his conviction and sentence to
no avail. See id., reh'g and reh'g en
banc denied Jan. 9, 2007.
subsequently filed two motions for relief from judgment under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Northern District of Illinois.
Both motions were unsuccessful. See United States v.
Humphreys, No. 12-cv-07689 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2013),
ECF 11; United States v. Humphreys, No. 08-cv-88
(N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2008), ECF 29. In 2011, Humphreys filed a
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the armed
career criminal offender provision no longer applied to him
because his prior state convictions had expired and his civil
rights had been restored. The district court held that
Humphreys should have filed the petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, and even if he had filed it under that statute,
it would have been denied as untimely. United States v.
Humphreys, No. 11-cv-5350, 2012 WL 1080526, at *2 (N.D.
Ill. Mar. 28, 2012).
2012, Humphreys filed a petition for habeas corpus relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, this time in the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court
held that the petition was not properly filed under §
2241. Humphreys v. Maye, No. 12-3088 (D. Kan. June
September 2015, Humphreys filed an application for an order
authorizing the district court to consider a successive
petition under § 2255, which the Seventh Circuit denied.
Humphreys v. United States, No. 15-2948 (7th Cir.
Oct. 5, 2015).
then filed a habeas corpus petition in this Court under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. There, he argued that under Mathis v.
United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), one of the
felonies supporting his enhancement under ACCA no longer
constitutes a predicate offense. The Court denied the
petition finding that it was not properly filed, as it was
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Dkt. No. 2.
On February 22, 2018, Petitioner filed the present motion
asking the Court to reconsider its decision. Dkt. No. 4.
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) governs motions to alter or
amend a judgment. A court may alter a judgment under Rule 59
based on: “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling
law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.”
Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Intera Corp. v.
Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)). In sum,
this rule “allow[s] the district court to correct its
own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the
burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings.”
Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting York v.
Tate, 858 F.2d 322, 326 (6th Cir. 1988)).
argues that the Court should alter its February 22, 2018
judgment based on an allegedly clear error of law.
See Dkt. No. 4, pg. 3 (Pg. ID 24). Humphreys
maintains that the Court erred in finding that he was not
permitted to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. According
to Humphreys, he may challenge his sentence under § 2241
because (1) his sentence was imposed pre-Booker,
when the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory; (2) he cannot
assert the claim in a successive petition under § 2255;
and (3) Mathis applies retroactively on collateral
review, meaning his aggravated burglary conviction is no
longer a predicate offense. See Id. at pp. 3-4.
federal prisoner may challenge a sentence under § 2241
pursuant to § 2255(e)'s savings clause if the
prisoner can establish that § 2255 is “inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Until recently, a sentencing
challenge, even one alleging actual innocence of a sentencing
enhancement, could not be raised under § 2241. See
Jones v. Castillo, 489 Fed.Appx. 864, 866 (6th Cir.
2012). Yet in Hill v. Masters, 836 F.3d 591, 599-
600 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit carved a narrow
exception that authorized challenges to sentences in §
2241 petitions. But this exception only applies where (1) a
petitioner's sentence was imposed under the mandatory
guidelines regime before Booker v. United States,
543 U.S. 220 (2005); (2) the petitioner was foreclosed from
filing a successive motion under ...