Bryant v. Stancil
689 F. App'x 614
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael D. Bryant is a federal prisoner who previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the Eastern District of Washington; that motion was denied and the Ninth Circuit refused authorization for a second or successive § 2255 petition.
- Bryant then filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District of Colorado, challenging his sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
- The District of Colorado dismissed Bryant’s § 2241 petition for lack of statutory jurisdiction, concluding Bryant had not shown § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether § 2241 could be used because § 2255 was unavailable or inadequate, focusing on whether Bryant had a prior opportunity to present his claims under § 2255.
- Bryant argued three grounds for § 2241 relief: inability to file a second § 2255, Ninth Circuit error, and that he only realized certain claims after the Ninth Circuit opinion. The Tenth Circuit rejected each argument.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 2241 petition and granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2241 is available to challenge Bryant's ACCA enhancement | §2255 is inadequate or ineffective, so §2241 is proper | §2255 is the proper and available remedy; §2241 not available | §2241 not available; §2255 was the proper remedy |
| Does inability to file a second/successive §2255 make §2255 inadequate | Denial of authorization by Ninth Circuit makes §2255 inadequate | Inability to file a successive petition does not render §2255 inadequate | Rejection — inability to file successive petition is not §2255 inadequacy |
| Does an alleged appellate error by the Ninth Circuit make §2255 inadequate | Ninth Circuit erred, so §2255 remedy would be ineffective | A court’s error does not make §2255 inadequate; remedy still available | Rejection — mere judicial error does not make §2255 inadequate |
| Does late realization of claims bar use of §2255 and permit §2241 | Only after Ninth Circuit decision did he realize certain claims, so §2241 is needed | Failure to present claims earlier does not show §2255 was inadequate; he could have raised them | Rejection — failure to realize claims sooner does not convert §2255 into an inadequate remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996) (§2255 is the typical remedy to challenge the validity of a federal sentence)
- Johnson v. Taylor, 347 F.2d 365 (10th Cir. 1965) (§2241 generally cannot be used to attack a sentence when §2255 is available)
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (§2255(e) allows §2241 only when §2255 is inadequate or ineffective; focus is on whether petitioner had opportunity to raise the claim)
- Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) (inability to file a second §2255 petition does not by itself render §2255 inadequate)