Hale v. Fox
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13155
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Matthew Hale, leader of a white‑supremacist group, was convicted of soliciting the murder of a federal judge and several counts of obstruction of justice; the Seventh Circuit affirmed his convictions.
- Hale filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising ineffective assistance and voir dire claims; the district court denied relief and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- While incarcerated in Colorado, Hale filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition invoking the § 2255(e) “savings clause,” advancing (1) a sufficiency/“actual innocence” challenge to his convictions and (2) a juror‑misconduct claim based on a foreman’s later testimony.
- The Colorado district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of statutory jurisdiction under the court’s interpretation of § 2255(e); it declined to reach the merits or hold an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit applied Prost v. Anderson and related precedent to determine whether Hale could use § 2241 under the savings clause despite having litigated earlier collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hale may use § 2241 via § 2255(e) to relitigate sufficiency of the evidence/"actual innocence" claim | Hale: trial evidence legally insufficient; he is actually innocent and § 2255 was inadequate to test that claim | Gov't: claim was raised and rejected on direct appeal and in § 2255; procedural bar means § 2255 was adequate | Court: Denied — claim was litigated on direct appeal; no new evidence of actual innocence, so § 2255(e) does not permit § 2241 review |
| Whether Hale may use § 2241 via § 2255(e) to pursue juror‑misconduct claim based on newly discovered foreman testimony | Hale: facts were not discoverable before his initial § 2255; savings clause should allow § 2241 to avoid injustice and constitutional concerns | Gov't: under Prost, § 2255(e) does not permit collateral second attacks that do not satisfy § 2255(h); Hale’s claim fails § 2255(h) so § 2241 is unavailable | Court: Denied — Prost forecloses § 2241 where the claim does not meet § 2255(h); Hale failed to show serious constitutional problems warranting avoidance |
| Whether application of Prost here raises serious constitutional concerns (Due Process or Suspension Clause) requiring a different reading of § 2255(e) | Hale: barring § 2241 review would leave him without any forum to vindicate an impaired jury‑impartiality right, raising due process and Suspension Clause problems | Gov't: Prost is consistent with constitutional limits; Felker and precedent indicate restrictions on successive collateral review do not suspend habeas | Court: Denied — Hale failed to show that applying Prost raises serious constitutional concerns; canonical avoidance not triggered |
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct after dismissing for lack of jurisdiction | Hale: requested a hearing to question the foreman about outside information during trial | Gov't: dismissal for lack of statutory jurisdiction mooted merits and any evidentiary hearing | Court: Not reached on merits because dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (interpreting § 2255(e) to bar § 2241 savings‑clause relief for successive claims that do not meet § 2255(h))
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual‑innocence gateway to federal habeas requires new, reliable evidence)
- Abernathy v. Wandes, 713 F.3d 538 (10th Cir. 2013) (explaining savings clause and burden on petitioner to show § 2255 inadequate)
- Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) (limits on successive habeas petitions do not violate the Suspension Clause)
- United States v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2006) (direct‑appeal decision affirming Hale’s solicitation and obstruction convictions)
- Spaulding v. Taylor, 336 F.2d 192 (10th Cir. 1964) (historic example where § 2255 was unavailable because sentencing court ceased to exist)
- Ackerman v. Novak, 483 F.3d 647 (10th Cir. 2007) (another example where § 2255 could be unavailable due to dissolution of court‑martial forum)