Abernathy v. Wandes
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7073
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Abernathy, a federal prisoner, challenged his ACCA sentence enhancement via a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition after his conviction became final.
- He was convicted in 2001 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced as an armed career criminal based on three qualifying ACCA predicates, including a 1979 walkaway escape.
- Upon direct appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the ACCA predicate status for the 1979 escape under then-existing circuit law; Chambers later changed the law regarding that predicate.
- Abernathy sought relief via § 2255, but was denied and no COA was granted; he then sought relief under the § 2241 savings clause in the District of Colorado.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition, applying the Fifth Circuit’s Reyes-Requena savings clause test, concluding the claim could not proceed because the loss of the Chambers argument was not an adequate or ineffective test of confinement.
- The Tenth Circuit later adopted Prost’s savings clause framework, which centers on whether the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention, and struck a balance with the law-of-the-case doctrine and Suspension Clause considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255(e)’s savings clause allows § 2241 relief here | Abernathy argues Prost test shows § 2255 is inadequate/ineffective due to Chambers. | Government argues Prost does not permit § 2241 here unless actual innocence shown and/or savings clause satisfied. | Not satisfied; § 2255 remedy not inadequate/ineffective under Prost. |
| Whether law-of-the-case forecloses testing in § 2255 motion | Abernathy contends law-of-the-case preventing reassertion barred testing in § 2255, enabling § 2241 relief. | Government contends law-of-the-case forecloses reconsideration, preventing § 2241 relief. | Law-of-the-case does not render § 2255 inadequate/ineffective under Prost. |
| Whether denying § 2241 relief would violate the Suspension Clause | Abernathy argues Suspension Clause would be violated if § 2241 were foreclosed. | Government argues no clear Suspension Clause violation under plain-error review here. | Not shown; Suspension Clause argument fails under plain-error review. |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to dismiss for lack of § 2255(e) savings clause | Abernathy contends § 2255(e) framework permits § 2241 relief. | Government maintains lack of savings clause deprives jurisdiction. | District court’s dismissal affirmed for lack of § 2255(e) jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (U.S. 2009) (Chambers held failure to report to a penal facility is not a violent felony under ACCA)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (requires purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct for violent felonies under ACCA)
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (adopted savings clause test: adequacy/ineffectiveness of § 2255, not actual innocence)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (savings clause test with actual innocence factor for certain cases)
- Dorsainvil (In re Dorsainvil), 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (savings clause considerations in facilitating § 2241 access)