984 F.3d 992
11th Cir.2021Background
- Amodeo pleaded guilty (2008) to conspiracy, failure to collect/pay payroll taxes, and obstruction; sentenced to five consecutive 54-month terms (270 months).
- Direct appeal affirmed; counsel-ineffective claim not resolved on direct appeal and competency claim rejected as unsupported by record.
- Amodeo filed multiple §2255 motions; his third §2255 was dismissed as time-barred and its actual-innocence claim denied on the merits; appeal affirmed.
- He then filed a §2241 petition invoking the §2255(e) "saving clause," arguing actual innocence because bipolar disorder negated the requisite intent.
- The district court dismissed the §2241 for lack of jurisdiction; the Eleventh Circuit (applying McCarthan en banc) affirmed, holding §2255 remained an adequate remedy and the saving clause did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amodeo may use §2241 under §2255(e) saving clause to challenge his conviction/sentence | Amodeo: §2255 is inadequate because a freestanding actual-innocence claim is not cognizable under §2255, so §2241 is proper | Government: McCarthan controls — §2255 is the proper avenue unless the remedy cannot test or provide relief for that kind of claim | Court: Denied — saving clause inapplicable; §2255 was an adequate and effective procedure to test the claim, so §2241 jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether a freestanding actual-innocence claim is "cognizable" under §2255 for saving-clause purposes | Amodeo: Actual innocence is not recognized in §2255 collateral relief, so §2255 cannot test it | Gov: Cognizability under McCarthan means the claim could have been raised and, if meritorious, §2255 can provide the remedy (vacatur, release, new trial, resentencing) | Court: A freestanding actual-innocence claim may be meritless in collateral proceedings but is still "cognizable" for §2255 purposes; §2255 is adequate unless it cannot provide any remedy |
| Whether Amodeo’s mental-health-based lack-of-intent claim fits the saving-clause exception | Amodeo: Bipolar disorder shows lack of criminal intent; imprisonment illegal and not testable under §2255 | Gov: Even if dispositive, such a claim could have been raised in an initial §2255 and §2255 could provide relief if meritorious | Court: Held not within saving clause; claim could have been raised in §2255 and that remedy is adequate/effective to test it |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (announces narrow test for §2255(e) saving clause: §2255 inadequate only when it cannot remedy that kind of claim)
- United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (1952) (historical rationale for creating §2255 and moving collateral challenges to sentencing court)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (interpreting "escape" under ACCA and prompting saving-clause litigation in McCarthan)
- Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (prior saving-clause test overturned by McCarthan)
- Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467 (11th Cir. 2015) (good-time-credit challenges as example of claims properly pursued under §2241)
- Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 766 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2014) (jurisdictional limits on §2241 and saving clause application)
- Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bank, 450 U.S. 503 (1981) (distinguishing "relief" from "remedy" for purposes of available legal processes)