Dwayne Reed v. Rebecca Clay
678 F. App'x 233
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Dwayne Eric Reed, a federal prisoner, filed a § 2241 petition in the Western District of Louisiana challenging his Eastern District of Wisconsin bank-robbery conviction.
- Reed alleged Confrontation Clause violations (relying on Crawford v. Washington) and ineffective assistance of counsel, and also claimed actual innocence.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, treating Reed’s challenge to his sentence as properly brought under § 2255.
- The court applied the § 2255(e) savings-clause framework: a § 2241 collateral attack on a federal sentence may proceed only if § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective under the Reyes-Requena test.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and assessed (1) whether Crawford is retroactive on collateral review, and (2) whether Reed showed a retroactive Supreme Court decision establishing he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2241 dismissal required application of the § 2255(e) savings clause | Reed: District court erred by requiring savings-clause showing before considering § 2241 | Government: A § 2241 challenging sentence must meet § 2255(e) or be dismissed | Held: Court correctly required savings-clause showing; § 2241 challenging a sentence must satisfy § 2255(e) or be dismissed |
| Whether Crawford claim meets the Reyes-Requena savings-clause test | Reed: Crawford-based Confrontation Clause claim is retroactive and shows he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense | Government: Crawford is not retroactive on collateral review and does not show conviction of a nonexistent offense | Held: Crawford is not retroactive; claim fails savings-clause test |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claim can satisfy savings clause | Reed: Counsel’s ineffectiveness at trial supports relief via savings clause | Government: Ineffectiveness does not show petitioner convicted of a nonexistent offense | Held: Ineffective-assistance claim does not meet Reyes-Requena requirement |
| Whether actual-innocence claim bypasses the savings-clause requirement or district court should have transferred/amended petition | Reed: Actual innocence or interest-of-justice transfer/amendment should allow review | Government: No basis to bypass savings clause; transfer/amendment not warranted | Held: Actual-innocence claim did not negate savings-clause requirement; transfer/amendment would be futile; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for § 2241 dismissal)
- Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir.) (sentence-validity challenges under § 2241 vs § 2255)
- Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876 (5th Cir.) (savings-clause § 2255(e) framework)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir.) (two-part test for savings clause; requires retroactive Supreme Court decision showing possible conviction for a nonexistent offense)
- Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827 (5th Cir.) (actual-innocence standard under Reyes-Requena)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause holding; not retroactive on collateral review)
- Lave v. Dretke, 444 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.) (Crawford not retroactive)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (federal courts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction)
- Marucci Sports, LLC v. NCAA, 751 F.3d 368 (5th Cir.) (futility doctrine for amendment)