Foreman v. Lappin, Civil Action No. 2017-1278

Petitioner Benjamin Foreman is a federal prisoner serving a 300‑month sentence imposed by the Western District of Michigan for drug and firearm offenses, enhanced by a career‑offender designation.
The career‑offender enhancement rested in part on two prior state offenses: “Assault With Intent to do Great Bodily Harm Less Than Murder” and “Delivery/Manufacture Cocaine Less Than 50 Grams.”
Foreman asserts he is actually innocent of the delivery/manufacture conviction because the Michigan court later dismissed that conviction, and therefore there is no factual basis for the career‑offender enhancement.
He filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the District of Columbia seeking immediate release or an evidentiary hearing, arguing his federal sentence is invalid.
The court held that Foreman’s challenge to his sentence must be raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court (Western District of Michigan), not by a habeas petition in this district, and noted Foreman already litigated § 2255 relief and has not obtained authorization from the Sixth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion.
The court dismissed the habeas petition for lack of an available remedy in this court because § 2255 is the exclusive collateral remedy and is not rendered inadequate simply because prior § 2255 relief was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this court may entertain Foreman’s habeas challenge to his sentence	Foreman: his federal sentence is unlawful because the state delivery conviction supporting the career‑offender enhancement was dismissed; he seeks release or an evidentiary hearing	Respondent: collateral attack on a federal sentence must be brought under § 2255 in the sentencing court; Foreman already pursued § 2255 and has no authorization for a successive motion	Dismissed: this court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief because § 2255 is the proper and exclusive remedy and Foreman has not shown § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective
Whether § 2255 is inadequate to test legality of detention, permitting § 2241-style habeas in another district	Foreman: impliedly contends § 2255 is inadequate because he cannot obtain relief here	Respondent: prior § 2255 denial and inability to file a successive motion do not render § 2255 inadequate	Held: § 2255 is not inadequate simply because relief was previously denied or successive authorization was refused; habeas petition is barred

Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 106 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 1997) (sentencing court has jurisdiction to hear collateral attacks on sentence)
Neal v. Gonzales, [citation="258 F. App'x 339"] (D.C. Cir. 2007) (§ 2255 remedy is not inadequate merely because prior § 2255 relief was denied)
Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases recognizing limits on successive § 2255 motions)