HASTINGS v. LONGLEY
1:10-cv-00080
W.D. Pa.Apr 26, 2012Background
- Hastings, inmate at FCI McKean, serving 300-month sentence from SC district for 1999 drug convictions (plea bargain).
- He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the sentence’s validity.
- He asserts two claims: (i) incorrect calculation of drug quantity (5 kg) vs pleaded 3.5–4.5 kg; (ii) actual innocence of the career-offender enhancement.
- The court finds §2255 inadequate/ineffective is not shown and dismisses the petition as jurisdictionally improper.
- The petition is also deemed an abuse of the writ because these claims were, or could have been, raised earlier in prior proceedings.
- Judgment: petition dismissed; no certificate of appealability; case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is an abuse of the writ. | Hastings argues not a novelty; claims raised previously. | Court held claims previously raised or raisable; petition is an abuse of writ. | Dismissed as abuse of the writ. |
| Whether §2255 is inadequate or ineffective to allow §2241 challenges to the sentence. | §2255 inadequate to challenge the sentence due to actual innocence and intervening law. | No showing that §2255 is inadequate; gatekeeping remains appropriate. | §2241 not available; petition dismissed. |
| Whether Dorsainvil saves §2241 relief for actual innocence plus no prior opportunity. | Claim of actual innocence and change in law warrant §2241 relief. | Petitioner fails to satisfy Dorsainvil’s requirements. | Pettition fails Dorsainvil test. |
| Whether Exinia-style analysis applies to Hastings’ case. | Exinia supports habeas relief where §2255 is inadequate. | Exinia does not apply; claim not about non-criminal conduct after intervening law. | Exinia analysis not satisfied; petition dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521 (3d Cir. 2001) (general rule: challenge conviction/sentence via §2255 in sentencing court)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (savings clause; sentencing issues do not automatically qualify for §2241 relief)
- Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (narrow exception: actual innocence plus no prior opportunity to challenge under intervening legal change)
- Pack v. Yussuf, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (savings clause requirement; inadequacy of §2255 must be shown)
- United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 199)) (discusses meaning of savings clause)