Allah Burman v. Kelly O. Hayes, Kim Wilson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ALLAH BURMAN, Petitioner, , . v. Civil Action No.: JKB-26-1341 KELLY O. HAYES, KIM WILSON, .

. Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The above-captioned Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by self-represented Petitioner Allah Burman. Burman states that he is currently in home □ confinement in Baltimore, Maryland under the authority of Volunteers of America. (ECF No. 1.)

Burman has also filed a Motion for Show Cause Order and a Motion to Expedite, (ECF Nos. 2 and 3.) For the reasons that follow, the Petition will be dismissed and the Motions will be denied.

Burman states that he is filing this Petition pursuant to § 2241 because he has already filed “multiple § 2255 motions” and is thus unable to satisfy the gatekeeping requirements for filing a _ Successive § 2255 motion. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) He claims that there was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in his criminal case rendering the judgment void; that the Drug Enforcement Administration overreached its authority as an executive agency because executive agencies cannot create federal criminal jurisdiction; and the lack of jurisdiction in his case constitutes a fundamental defect that results in a miscarriage of justice. (Id. at 2.) All of these factors, says Burman, render his current confinement illegal and entitle him to immediate release.

Although a federal prisoner generally may not seek collateral relief from a conviction or sentence by way of § 2241, there is an exception under the so-called “saving clause” in § 2255(e).

This provision allows a prisoner to seek relief under § 2241 if the remedy under § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The Supreme Court clarified what qualifies as a claim that meets the requirements of the saving clause in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023). Specifically, the Court rejected the notion that the saving clause allows for resort to a § 2241 petition as a vehicle to challenge the validity of a conviction in lieu of a § 2255 motion where the “second-or-successive restrictions barred a prisoner from seeking relief based on a newly adopted narrowing interpretation of a criminal statute that circuit precedent had foreclosed at the time of the prisoner’s trial, appeal, and first § 2255 motion.” Jd. at 477. The Court held “that the saving clause does not authorize such an end-run around” § 2055's second- or-successive restrictions. Jd. Rather, “the saving clause preserves recourse to § 2241 in cases where unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court, as well as for challenges to detention other than collateral attacks on a sentence.” Jd. at 478.

The instant petition clearly challenges the validity of the conviction or sentence and is _ properly construed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Regardless of the label used by Petitioner, the subject matter of the motion, and not its title, determines its status. See, e.g., Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 553 (1998). A § 2241 habeas petition may not be used to circumvent the statutory limitations imposed on second-or-successive § 2255 motions. Hendrix, 599 U.S. at 477. Burman’s clear attempt to circumvent these limitations thus fails.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1, The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED; 2. The Motions for Show Cause Order and to Expedite (ECF Nos. 2 and 3) are DENIED; 3. The Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Burman; and 4. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.

Dated this day of April, 2026.

FOR THE COURT: Jamés K. Bredar United States District Judge