UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DEMETRIUS D. THOMPSON, ) CASE NO. 1:25CV1763 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO ) vs. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Respondent. ) CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J: Pro se petitioner Demetrius D. Thompson, an inmate currently in custody at FCI Coleman Medium, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

(Doc. No. 1). Petitioner challenges his sentence in this District Court in United States v. Thompon, No. 1:19 CR 00618 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 17, 2019). Specifically, Petitioner seeks a recalculation of his federal sentence, claiming that the Court enhanced Petitioner’s sentence using “relevant conduct” of which he was not convicted and therefore the “two-point increase to his offense level must be removed.” (Doc. No. 1-1 at 5). Federal district courts must conduct an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. See

; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons,

(6th Cir. 2011). A court must deny a petition “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief” in the district court. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)). A federal prisoner must challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence by filing with the trial court a motion to vacate his or her conviction under

. Capaldi v. Pontesso,

(6th Cir. 1998). A habeas corpus petition under Section 2241 is appropriate for claims challenging “‘the execution or manner in which the sentence is served’-- those things occurring within prison.” Taylor v. Owens,

(6th Cir. 2021)

(quoting Charles v. Chandler,

(6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)). The remedy afforded under Section 2241 is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to that prescribed under Section 2255. See Bradshaw v. Story,

(10th Cir. 1996). Here, Petitioner is clearly attacking the legality of his sentence. He therefore cannot proceed with a Section 2241 habeas petition. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

and DISMISSES the action pursuant to

. Further, the Court

certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO United States District Judge Dated: September 18, 2025

2