Hayden v. Lillard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PARRISH HAYDEN, JR., No. 22617-509,
Petitioner,
v.
T. LILLARD, Warden,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-00235-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Parrish Hayden’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institute at Greenville, Illinois, where Respondent T. Lillard is the warden. He is challenging his
federal conviction and sentence in United States v. Hayden, 3:21-CR-00023-CHB-RSE-1 (W.D.
Ky. 2021).
The petition is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Rule 4 provides
that upon preliminary consideration by a district judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge
must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) gives this Court
the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2021, Petitioner pled guilty in the Western District of Kentucky to
distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, distribution of fentanyl, possession of a
firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. He
was sentenced to 120 months on counts 1, 2, and 4, to run concurrently with one other, and 60
Case 3:26-cv-00235-JPG Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
months on count 3, to run consecutively with the sentence imposed on the other counts, for a
total of 180 months. Petitioner did not appeal his sentence.
On July 27, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2255. His motion was denied as untimely. Since that denial, Petitioner has filed four motions
with the Sixth Circuit seeking authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. The
three motions it has considered have been denied.
II. 	ANALYSIS
Petitioner now argues that the Court should overturn his sentence because it violated his
Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy. However, his collateral attack on his sentence is
not cognizable in a § 2241 proceeding.
Generally, an inmate wishing to challenge his sentence must file a § 2255 motion in the
district of his conviction. Chazen v. Marske, 938 F.3d 851, 856 (7th Cir. 2019). He is limited to
one § 2255 motion and may file a second or successive petition only if he relies on “newly
discovered evidence,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1), or “a new rule of constitutional law,” 28 U.S.C. §
2255(h)(2). There is an exception to this rule under the “savings clause” of § 2255(e), which
allows an inmate to attack his sentence in a § 2241 petition in the district of his incarceration
where a § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
The Supreme Court held in Jones v. Hendrix that § 2255 is only “inadequate or
ineffective” to challenge a sentence in “unusual circumstances in which it is impossible or
impracticable for a prisoner to seek relief from the sentencing court,” such as, for example,
where the court of conviction no longer exists. 599 U.S. 465, 474 (2023). The Court held that
allowing a collateral attack in a § 2241 petition in any other circumstance would work an end-run
Case 3:26-cv-00235-JPG Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
around § 2255(h)’s limitations on successive collateral attacks to two, and only two,
circumstances. Id. at 477. The Court drew a “straightforward negative inference” from the
limitation—that no other successive collateral attacks on a sentence are allowed, period. Id. at
477–78. Accordingly, Petitioner may not bring his petition under § 2241.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Hayden Parrish’s
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and DIRECTS the
Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.
If Petitioner wishes to appeal this decision, generally he must file a notice of appeal with
this Court within 60 days of the entry of judgment. F ED. R. APP . P. 4(a)(1)(B). A motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 60-day appeal deadline. F ED. R. APP . P.
4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than 28 days after the entry of the judgment,
and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended. Other motions, including a Rule 60 motion for
relief from judgment, do not toll the deadline for an appeal.
If Petitioner files a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, he must include in his
motion a description of the issues he intends to present on appeal. See F ED. R. APP . P.
24(a)(1)(C). If he appeals and is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, he will be liable for a
portion of the $605.00 appellate filing fee (the amount to be determined based on his prison trust
fund account records for the past six months) irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See F ED.
R. APP . P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725–26 (7th Cir.
2008).
It is not necessary for Petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability from this
Case 3:26-cv-00235-JPG Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
disposition of his § 2241 petition. Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 638 (7th Cir. 2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 20, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00235-JPG Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>