793 F. Supp. 2d 747
E.D.N.C.2011Background
- Petitioner Larry Eames challenges his money laundering conviction via a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition brought through the § 2255 savings clause.
- The Government moved to dismiss; the Court denied the motion initially; Government moves for reconsideration, which the Court also denies.
- The Fourth Circuit three-part test (In re Jones) governs whether a § 2241 petition is permissible when § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective.
- Petition was convicted in Arizona; Ninth Circuit law governs the § 2241 analysis under Santos interpretation.
- The Court previously found: (i) § 2255 inadequate; (ii) Santos changed the law so conduct may not be criminal; (iii) gatekeeping provisions cannot be satisfied because the new rule is not constitutional.
- The Government sought transfer to Arizona, which the Court again denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which circuit's law governs the savings clause analysis? | Eames applies law of the circuit of conviction (Ninth). | Government urges law of the circuit of confinement (Fourth). | Ninth Circuit law applies—the circuit of conviction governs. |
| Does the Ninth Circuit's denial of Santos in a successive § 2255 petition bar § 2241 relief? | Denial does not bar, Santos did not create a new constitutional rule. | Bar applies; Santos denial in § 2255 file blocks further relief. | Denial of Santos does not bar § 2241 relief; the savings clause allows it. |
| Is transfer to the District of Arizona appropriate? | Transfer is supported by convenience and posture. | Transfer is unwarranted. | Transfer denied; no reason to depart from original ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir.2000) (establishes the three-part savings clause test for § 2241 petitions)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (determines whether a new rule is constitutional for § 2255 gatekeeping)
- In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.1998) (discusses change in law and circuit split considerations)
- Chaney v. O'Brien, 241 Fed.Appx. 977 (4th Cir.2007) (adopts Hernandez approach; § 2241 law depends on conviction circuit)
- Hernandez v. Gilkey, 242 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D. Ill.2001) (supports applying circuit of conviction law for § 2241 petitions)