United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
CHUKWUEMEKA O. EZIOLISA, Petitioner,
J.A. TERRIS, Respondent.
OPINION & ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS (DKT. 1)
A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Chukwuemeka O. Eziolisa,  currently incarcerated in the Federal
Correctional Facility in Milan, Michigan, brings this habeas
corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argues
that the Supreme Court's decision in Dean v. United
States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (Apr. 3, 2017), warrants resentencing.
For the reasons set forth, the Court denies the petition.
2010, Eziolisa pleaded guilty in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio to one count of armed
robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and one count of
brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). See United
States v. Eziolisa, No. 3:10-cr-00039 (S.D. Ohio) (ECF No.
2011, Eziolisa filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
raising jurisdictional and ineffective assistance of counsel
claims. The district court denied the motion, see
id. (Dkt. 49), and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied a certificate of appealability. Eziolisa v. United
States, No. 11-4364 (6th Cir. March 25, 2013) (Dkt. 34).
The district court denied Eziolisa's two subsequent
§ 2255 motions (Dkts. 72, 89), and the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals denied relief. See Eziolisa v. United
States, No. 13-4344 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014) (Dkt. 15);
Eziolisa v. United States, No. 15-3615 (6th Cir. Jan
21, 2016) (Dkt. 93). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also
denied Eziolisa's motion for leave to file a successive
§ 2255 motion. In re: Chukwuemeka Eziolisa, No.
16-3716 (6th Cir. Sept. 22, 2016) (Dkt. 94).
then filed the pending petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
He claims that, based upon the Supreme Court's decision
in Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017), his
sentence is unconstitutional.
claim is not properly raised in a petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 and will be dismissed. Generally, a
prisoner's claim that his conviction and sentence were
imposed in violation of the federal constitution or federal
law must be raised in a motion to vacate or correct sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v.
Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001). A
petitioner may, instead, raise such a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, only if the remedy under § 2255 is
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Charles
v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 1999).
argues that, pursuant to Hill v. Masters, 836 F.3d
591 (6th Cir. 2016), his sentencing claim is properly filed
under § 2241. Hill allows a petitioner to
challenge a sentence under § 2241 only if he satisfies
these conditions: (1) the petitioner's sentence was
imposed under the mandatory guidelines regime prior to
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); (2)
the petitioner was foreclosed from filing a successive motion
under § 2255; and (3) after the petitioner's
sentence became final, the Supreme Court issued a
retroactively applicable decision finding that - as a matter
of statutory interpretation - a previous conviction used to
enhance the petitioner's sentence no longer qualified as
a predicate offense. Hill v. Masters, 836 F.3d 591,
599-600 (6th Cir. 2016).
was sentenced five years after Booker was decided,
and, therefore, he fails to satisfy Hill's first
condition. He also fails to satisfy the second condition
because, in Dean, the Supreme Court did not suggest
that the holding was to be applied retroactively on
collateral review. See Buggs v. Terris, No.
17-11658, 2018 WL 6445690, *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2018)
(collecting cases). Petitioner may not proceed under §
2241 via the savings clause of § 2255.
reasons stated, the Court concludes Petitioner fails to
establish that his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective to challenge the validity of his
sentence. His petition is improperly filed under 28 U.S.C.
the Court denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and
the matter is dismissed without prejudice.