Cox v. United States, 4:15-cv-01756

Andrew Cox was arrested Dec. 2, 2010 in Ohio on a New Jersey criminal complaint charging distribution of child pornography; he first appeared in Ohio Dec. 3, 2010 and was detained pending transfer to New Jersey.
Cox was transferred through multiple facilities and did not appear before the District of New Jersey until Jan. 5, 2011; the New Jersey magistrate had granted a continuance (Dec. 23, 2010) excluding Dec. 23–Jan. 22 under the Speedy Trial Act based on government representations about transfer delays and lack of counsel in the district.
The government filed a superseding complaint and later an indictment charging multiple counts of distribution (including conduct alleged May 10, 2010); Cox moved to dismiss some counts as violating the Speedy Trial Act based on his Dec. 2 arrest date.
The New Jersey district court granted dismissal as to one count but denied dismissal as to other counts; Cox pleaded guilty to six counts, unsuccessfully sought to withdraw the plea, and the Third Circuit affirmed.
Cox filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition in the Northern District of Ohio claiming the district court in New Jersey used a Jan. 5, 2011 arrest date (rather than Dec. 2, 2010) due to a fraudulent docket entry and that this affected speedy-trial calculations; he sought vacatur of all six convictions and release.
The Ohio district court screened the § 2241 petition and considered whether § 2255’s savings clause allowed relief via § 2241.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cox may use § 2241 to challenge the validity of his conviction based on the district court’s use of Jan. 5, 2011 arrest date	Cox argued the New Jersey court refused to correct a fraudulent docket/ arrest date, so speedy-trial calculations were improper; he asserted actual innocence and malicious prosecution	Government argued Cox’s claim attacks the validity of his conviction and must be raised under § 2255; § 2255 is the proper vehicle and the § 2255 savings clause does not apply	Court dismissed the § 2241 petition: claim challenges conviction (not sentence execution) and Cox did not meet the narrow § 2255 savings-clause standard (no new Supreme Court rule showing actual innocence)

Rice v. White, 660 F.3d 242 (6th Cir.) (describing § 2241 habeas power)
Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292 (6th Cir. 2001) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (standards for district courts screening habeas petitions)
Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134 (6th Cir. 1970) (district courts’ duty to screen meritless habeas petitions)
Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing § 2255 and § 2241 and explaining the savings clause)
United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458 (6th Cir. 2001) (§ 2255 is the primary vehicle to challenge a sentence)
Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 1999) (claims attacking sentence must proceed under § 2255)
Barnes v. United States, [citation="102 F. App'x 441"] (6th Cir.) (the § 2255 savings clause is not satisfied merely because § 2255 relief was denied)
Hayes v. Holland, [citation="473 F. App'x 501"] (6th Cir.) (explaining narrow circumstances where § 2255 savings clause permits § 2241 relief)