535 F. App'x 87
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Donald G. Jackman, Jr., a federal prisoner, was convicted in 2002 for being a felon in possession of firearms and possession of an unregistered firearm and sentenced to 262 months; direct appeal affirmed and a § 2255 motion was denied.
- In 2012 Jackman filed a § 2241 habeas petition arguing his conviction violated the Second Amendment, relying on Alleyne and other recent decisions, claiming actual innocence (North Carolina unconditional discharge), and alleging ineffective/ incompetent counsel.
- The District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition as raising claims cognizable under § 2255 and found Jackman had not shown § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective; it also denied his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration.
- Jackman appealed; the Third Circuit exercised jurisdiction and reviewed de novo the dismissal and for abuse of discretion the Rule 59(e) denial.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding Alleyne-based and related sentencing claims must be brought under § 2255 and that Jackman failed to show the § 2255 “safety valve” applied; Martinez/Trevino do not allow federal prisoners to convert § 2255 defects into § 2241 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper vehicle for challenging conviction/sentence | Jackman: § 2241 is available because § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test his detention | Government: § 2255 is the proper and adequate remedy; § 2241 is not available | Held: Claims must be brought under § 2255; § 2241 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Applicability of Alleyne to permit § 2241 relief | Jackman: Alleyne (Apprendi extension) invalidates sentencing facts and supports § 2241 relief | Government: Alleyne claims are § 2255 claims and do not fit the § 2255 safety-valve | Held: Alleyne-based claim must be pursued under § 2255, not § 2241 |
| Actual innocence / intervening decisions (safety-valve) | Jackman: Descamps, Davila, Alleyne render his conduct non-criminal or justify § 2241 | Government: Those decisions do not render his conviction non-criminal; do not create § 2255 inadequacy | Held: No showing that intervening cases made his conduct non-criminal; § 2255 remains adequate |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel via Martinez/Trevino | Jackman: Relies on Martinez/Trevino to excuse procedural bars and permit § 2241 ineffective assistance claim | Government: Martinez/Trevino apply to state prisoners’ state procedural defaults, not federal § 2241 relief | Held: Martinez/Trevino do not authorize federal prisoners to use § 2241 in place of § 2255; claim not cognizable under § 2241 |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (Apprendi rule extended to facts increasing statutory minimum sentence)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury must find beyond reasonable doubt any fact increasing statutory maximum)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (prior rule that Apprendi did not apply to facts increasing statutory minimum)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits on use of the modified categorical approach under the ACCA)
- In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (§ 2255 inadequate/ineffective safety-valve where intervening Supreme Court decision decriminalizes conduct)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (postconviction challenges to conviction/sentence must be brought under § 2255)
- Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (limits on invoking § 2255 inadequacy for § 2241 relief)
- United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643 (3d Cir. 2000) (§ 2255 is inadequate only if procedural/scope limits prevent full adjudication)
- Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) denial)
- Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666 (3d Cir. 2010) (requirements for Rule 59(e) motions)