Christiansen, Robert v. Emmerich, E.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ROBERT CHRISTIANSEN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN E. EMMERICH,
Respondent.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-793-jdp
Robert Christiansen, proceeding without counsel, seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, contending that the underlying facts do not support his conviction. Christiansen is a
prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons currently housed at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin. He was convicted of attempted enticement of
a minor to engage in illegal sexual acts and transportation of a minor with intent to engage in
criminal 	sexual 	activity. 	See United 	States 	v. 	Christiansen, 	No. 3:17-CR-677 	(D.S.C.). 	I
previously denied Christiansen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Christiansen v. Rosenberg, No. 24-CV-64-JDP, 2024 WL 2882207, at *1 (W.D. Wis. May 16,
2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24-2025, 2024 WL 5105534 (7th Cir. July 18, 2024). Now
Christiansen again seeks habeas relief under § 2241. Dkt. 1.
I will deny Christiansen’s new petition for the same reason that I denied his first one in
this court. Only in rare cases a prisoner can challenge his conviction or sentence with a § 2241
petition, instead of a § 2255 petition, through the so-called “savings clause” contained in the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). But a prisoner may use
the savings clause only if a § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of
his detention.” Id. The circumstances in which the savings clause applies are narrow and
Case: 3:25-cv-00793-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3

2
“cover[] unusual circumstances in which it is impossible or impracticable for a prisoner to seek
relief from the sentencing court” in a § 2255 motion. Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 474 (2023)
(giving examples such as the dissolution of the sentencing court).
Christiansen is currently seeking § 2255 relief in the sentencing court. See Dkt. 169 and
Dkt. 179 in the ’677 case. It’s possible that the sentencing court will deny that motion as
untimely, but even if it does so, Christiansen cannot seek § 2241 relief here. See Poe v. LaRiva,
834 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir. 2016) (Availability of § 2241 relief under the savings clause
“generally requires a structural problem in § 2255 that forecloses even one round of effective
collateral review, unrelated to the petitioner’s own mistakes.” (internal quotation omitted and
alteration adopted)); Morales v. Bezy, 499 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2007) (“A prisoner cannot
be permitted to lever his way into section 2241 by making his section 2255 remedy inadequate
. . . .” (emphasis in original)).
Christiansen argues that § 2241 relief is available to him because new evidence shows
that he is actually innocent, citing McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013). Christiansen
doesn’t explain what new evidence proves his innocence. But even if he did present new
evidence that passed muster under the McQuiggin standard, that would be reason for the
sentencing court to consider an otherwise untimely § 2255 motion. This court cannot consider
a § 2241 petition if § 2255 relief is available.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Robert Christiansen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is DENIED.
Case: 3:25-cv-00793-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3

3
2. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
Entered November 14, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00793-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3