Johnson v. United States, 2:14-cv-00595

Johnson was convicted by a jury on multiple counts of mail and wire fraud (United States v. Johnson, 2:09-cr-133).
Judgment was not entered until September 10, 2014, due to prolonged post-trial motions and sentencing issues.
Johnson filed an Amended Notice of Appeal on November 8, 2014; the appeal is pending.
Johnson is imprisoned under a Utah State conviction for securities fraud; he previously sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was denied.
In the present petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Johnson seeks habeas relief for both state and federal convictions on actual innocence grounds.
The court analyzes whether § 2241 relief is proper when the § 2255 remedy is inadequate, and whether the petition is premature or improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2241 is available when §2255 is adequate	Johnson argues for §2241 relief for actual innocence.	Government says §2255 is the proper channel; §2241 is unavailable if §2255 is adequate.	§2241 is not appropriate here; relief under §2255 is required.
Whether the petition was premature and unexhausted	Johnson maintains his claim is ripe for §2241 relief.	Johnson failed to exhaust direct appeals and judgment was not final.	Petition is premature and must be dismissed without prejudice.
Whether the Utah State conviction relief is actionable under §2241	Johnson seeks relief for both state and federal convictions under §2241.	Relief for state conviction cannot be obtained via §2241 in federal court when §2255 is available for federal issues.	Claims concerning the Utah State conviction are not properly pursued under §2241.

Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (explanation of §2241 availability when §2255 is inadequate or ineffective)
Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996) (referral to refiling as §2255 in the appropriate sentencing court)