Why Habeas Corpus is F*cked Up
(Excerpt from Paper Jumpsuit by Michael F. Schulze)
For all the romanticized talk about liberty and justice in America, there’s one legal mechanism that’s supposed to be sacred: habeas corpus. The “Great Writ.” The tool to challenge unlawful detention. The last resort when every other door has been slammed shut.
But once you’re inside the system?
That door is bolted too — rusted shut by confusion, judicial laziness, and outright clerical abuse.
A Quick Primer (Before the Fire)
Habeas corpus appears in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution — the only right written into the document before the Bill of Rights. It’s meant to protect you from being held without cause.
There are now three main types:
– § 2254 – for state prisoners challenging state court convictions
– § 2255 – for federal prisoners challenging their convictions
– § 2241 – for federal prisoners challenging the execution of their sentence or conditions of confinement
This post is about § 2241 — and how its lack of defined rules allows judges and clerks to do whatever they want.
The Legal Sinkhole Called Rule 1(b)
Congress never created a set of rules specifically for § 2241. Instead, they dropped a vague line in Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, which says courts may apply § 2254 rules to other habeas petitions.
That line is a ticking time bomb.
Judges don’t know what to do with it. Clerks misread it. Prisoners suffer for it. Because of that single line, courts across the country regularly apply the wrong procedures — especially when it comes to certificates of appealability (COAs), which are not required for § 2241 petitions.
And yet… they demand them anyway.
My $505 Lesson in How Bad It’s Gotten
In 2020, I filed a § 2241 petition from inside FDC Honolulu after the warden illegally revoked my law library access during COVID-19 lockdowns. My petition was denied by Judge Derrick Watson — who at least admitted my claims didn’t fall within the “core” of habeas.
But then came the real injustice.
I filed a Notice of Appeal. I paid $505 to challenge that denial.
And then… nothing.
Except a clerk — not a judge — sent an order demanding I file a request for a COA.
Let’s stop here.
COAs are required under § 2254, for state prisoners.
They are not required under § 2241. The Ninth Circuit has said this for over 25 years. Cases like Ford v. U.S. Parole Comm’n (1997) and Close v. Thomas (2011) make it crystal clear.
But this clerk — either unaware or uncaring — demanded a COA, then dismissed my appeal when I didn’t file one. Again: I never had to.
The Docket of Absurdity
The clerk also added “aka Michael Dannon” to the case file, a name that does not appear anywhere else in the record — presumably to cast suspicion or discredit me.
When I later filed a motion to reopen the appeal based on clerk error, I received nothing but silence. Not even a response. When I tried to file a formal complaint? I was told, “We do not process complaints against court clerks.”
So let’s recap:
– A clerk overstepped her authority.
– She applied a rule that doesn’t apply.
– She dismissed a federal appeal.
– She misrepresented my identity.
– And she cost me $505 for the privilege.
This Is Not a Rare Mistake — It’s a Pattern
What happened to me isn’t isolated. It’s part of a systemic failure caused by Rule 1(b)’s vague language and the absence of clear rules for § 2241.
Judges misapply rules.
Clerks act without authority.
Appeals are denied without legal cause.
And nobody is held accountable.
If you’re a prisoner without access to legal training, you never even know you were cheated. And even if you do? There’s no remedy.
What Needs to Change (But Won’t Anytime Soon)
Until someone in Congress grows a spine or a conscience, here’s what must happen:
- Remove “habeas corpus” from §§ 2241 and 2254 and call these statutes what they are.
- Delete or revise Rule 1(b) of the § 2254 rules so clerks stop misapplying it.
- Create a distinct set of rules for § 2241 — the way they did for § 2255.
- Restrict COA requirements to § 2254 only, as the law already intends.
- Prohibit clerks from dismissing appeals, especially based on misapplied rules.
Final Thought
They didn’t just take away my appeal — they stole $505. And they’ll do it to someone else tomorrow.
This is habeas corpus in America.
Not a lifeline. A loophole.
Not a right. A rhetorical illusion.
If you think that’s justice, then maybe you deserve the system you have.
But if you think it’s bullshit?
Welcome to Paper Jumpsuit — and to FedLawForum, where we’re saying what others won’t.
Want the Full Story?
This excerpt was pulled directly from Paper Jumpsuit — Michael F. Schulze’s firsthand account of fighting the system from inside it.
If you found this post disturbing, informative, or infuriating…
Read the rest.
Join the fight.
Start a fire.
Visit Decade 2 Publishing at www.C5M.world or follow FedLawForum.com to get involved.