Bracey v. Warden
8:12-cv-00760
D. MarylandJun 21, 2012Background
- Bracey convicted in 1995 after a jury trial of a heroin and cocaine conspiracy; sentenced to 360 months.
- Appellate history: Fourth Circuit affirmance; Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Bracey previously moved under §2255; denied in 1999; Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of COA.
- On March 9, 2012 Bracey, proceeding pro se, filed a §2241 petition challenging his sentence from FCI Cumberland.
- The court held that §2255 is the presumptive avenue and that §2241 savings clause applies only in narrow circumstances; Bracey’s challenge to his sentence does not meet those criteria; petition dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2241 may be used to challenge Bracey's sentence via the savings clause | Bracey relies on §2241 savings clause to attack sentence. | Savings clause applies only when §2255 is inadequate; Bracey's circumstances do not satisfy Jones. | Not proper; savings clause not applicable to sentence challenges. |
| Whether Bracey may proceed under §2241 without exhausting §2255 or obtaining authorization for a second or successive petition | Bracey seeks relief under §2241 rather than §2255. | A second or successive §2255 requires authorization from the circuit; §2241 cannot circumvent this. | Petition dismissed; Bracey must obtain circuit authorization for a second or successive §2255 if pursuing relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000) (savings clause eligibility is rare; allows §2241 relief only if §2255 is inadequate)
- In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 (4th Cir. 1997) (limits on when §2255 is inadequate and ineffective)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2002) (retains that change in law must render conduct non-criminal to invoke savings clause)
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1974) (establishes §2255 as the presumptive avenue for challenging conviction/sentence)
- United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2008) (savings clause does not extend to challenges to sentences)
- Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) (standard for issuing COA in habeas appeals following procedural dismissals)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA denied unless substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right)