Darius Quinard Carlisle v. J.T. SHARTLE, Warden

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0361n.06
No. 11-3810
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DARIUS QUINARD CARLISLE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
J.T. SHARTLE, Warden
Respondent-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
Before: KEITH, MARTIN, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Darius Quinard Carlisle, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Carlisle has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this court.
In 2005, Carlisle pled guilty to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threat of violence
and using a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 924(c)(1)(A).
Carlisle was sentenced to consecutive terms of ninety-six months and 120 months of imprisonment.
Carlisle did not appeal his convictions.
In 2008, Carlisle filed a motion to vacate his convictions and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. The district court denied his petition as untimely. Various subsequent challenges to his
convictions were also unsuccessful.
In December 2010, Carlisle filed the instant habeas corpus petition arguing that he is actually
innocent of his crimes because the pizza delivery man he robbed at gunpoint was not involved in

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 11-3810
- 2 -
interstate commerce. The district court denied the petition because Carlisle’s claims attacked the
imposition of his sentence and he had not demonstrated that the remedy under section 2255 was
inadequate. Carlisle filed this timely appeal.
“We review a district court’s legal conclusions in a habeas corpus decision de novo.” United
States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001). “Section 2255 is the primary avenue for relief
for federal prisoners protesting the legality of their sentence, while § 2241 is appropriate for claims
challenging the execution or manner in which the sentence is served.” Id. However, the so-called
“savings clause” of section 2255 provides that if section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of his detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255, then “a federal prisoner may also challenge the
validity of his conviction or sentence under § 2241.” Peterman, 249 F.3d at 461. “[T]he § 2255
remedy is not considered inadequate or ineffective simply because § 2255 relief has already been
denied . . . or because the petitioner is procedurally barred from pursuing relief under § 2255 . . . or
because the petitioner has been denied permission to file a second or successive motion to vacate[.]”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). Invocation of the savings clause is
restricted to cases where prisoners can show “an intervening change in the law that establishes their
actual innocence.” Id. at 462. The prisoner has the burden of proving that his remedy under section
2255 is inadequate or ineffective. Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
The district court correctly dismissed Carlisle’s section 2241 petition. Carlisle cannot attack
the imposition of his sentence under section 2241 because he did not demonstrate that section 2255
was “inadequate or ineffective” to present this challenge. See Peterman, 249 F.3d at 461. Nor has
Carlisle shown “an intervening change in the law that establishes [his] actual innocence.” Id. at 462.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 11-3810
- 3 -
Carlisle’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the district court’s
judgment is affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --