Andrews v. Barnes, 5:20-cv-02233

Petitioner Antonio Andrews, a federal prisoner sentenced in the Western District of Michigan, filed a § 2241 habeas petition challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and his sentence (including ACCA predicate and ineffective-assistance claims), relying principally on Rehaif v. United States.
Andrews had previously pursued direct appeal and at least one § 2255 motion; the district court evaluated whether the § 2255 savings clause permits review under § 2241.
Magistrate Judge West recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because Andrews could not show § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test his detention; Andrews objected, claiming actual innocence and other grounds.
The District Court reviewed the Report de novo, applied the Fourth Circuit’s tests (In re Jones and Wheeler), and considered Sixth Circuit substantive law (because sentencing occurred in the Sixth Circuit).
The Court held Andrews failed to meet the Jones or Wheeler savings-clause tests (Rehaif did not render his conduct non‑criminal nor was it retroactively applicable for collateral review), rejected his actual-innocence argument, and dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Requests for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing were denied for lack of exceptional circumstances and because the savings-clause jurisdictional threshold was not met.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2255 is inadequate so Andrews may proceed under § 2241 (savings clause)	Andrews contends Rehaif and subsequent developments make § 2255 inadequate and allow § 2241 review	Respondent argues Rehaif did not render possession noncriminal and Andrews cannot meet Jones/Wheeler requirements; § 2255 remains adequate	Denied — Andrews cannot meet In re Jones or Wheeler; § 2241 jurisdiction lacks because savings clause not satisfied
Freestanding actual innocence claim	Andrews asserts actual innocence (intoxication and Rehaif error)	Respondent: actual‑innocence is not a gateway without satisfying savings clause; must first show § 2255 inadequate	Denied — freestanding actual innocence is not cognizable to open § 2241 absent satisfying savings clause
Validity of ACCA predicate / ineffective assistance of counsel	Andrews contends his juvenile/adjudication does not qualify as ACCA predicate and counsel was ineffective	Respondent: no intervening substantive change rendering predicate nonviolent; prior appeals and § 2255 resolution rejected these claims	Denied — no new retroactive law or savings‑clause entitlement allows § 2241 review
Requests for counsel and evidentiary hearing	Andrews requested counsel and an evidentiary hearing	Respondent opposed; Court noted no exceptional circumstances and no jurisdictional basis	Denied — no exceptional circumstances; and § 2241 review unavailable without savings‑clause showing

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1976) (district court’s review duties for magistrate recommendations)
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (clear‑error standard when no objections to magistrate report)
In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 (4th Cir. 1997) (§ 2255 is primary remedy; savings clause narrowly construed)
Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802 (4th Cir. 2010) (federal prisoners ordinarily must use § 2255, not § 2241)
In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000) (three‑part test when § 2255 might be inadequate)
United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018) (savings‑clause factors for sentencing claims and retroactivity)
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (U.S. 2019) (knowledge‑of‑status element for § 922(g) convictions)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1998) (must satisfy savings clause to access § 2241 collateral review)
Hahn v. Moseley, 931 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2019) (actual‑innocence inquiry does not replace Jones/Wheeler gateway)
United States v. Odom, 13 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 1994) (knowledge‑of‑possession element discussed in § 922(g) context)