Jones v. Goetz
712 F. App'x 722
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Curtis Deon Jones, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty in 2006 to racketeering conspiracy under a plea agreement that included a broad waiver of direct appeal and collateral attack rights (except certain ineffective-assistance claims). He admitted shooting James Stewart in connection with the conspiracy.
- At sentencing the district court treated the underlying racketeering activity as including second-degree murder under the Guidelines, producing a base offense level of 38 and a 260-month sentence.
- Jones filed an initial § 2255 motion raising ineffective-assistance and related claims; it was denied. Multiple subsequent attempts in the sentencing district to reopen relief (successive § 2255, Rule 60, etc.) were unsuccessful and the Tenth Circuit denied authorization for a successive § 2255.
- Jones then filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the district of his confinement (Colorado), asserting actual and legal innocence of the murder-based racketeering activity and ineffective assistance in plea negotiation and sentencing.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of statutory jurisdiction, holding Jones failed to show § 2255 was “inadequate or ineffective” under the savings clause; the court also denied in forma pauperis (IFP) status on appeal.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, applying its precedent that § 2241 relief to challenge a conviction is available only when the § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention, and rejecting Jones’s reliance on Reyes-Requena and actual-innocence arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones may use § 2241 to challenge the validity of his conviction/sentence | Jones: § 2255 is inadequate/effective-blocked because he is time-barred and cannot meet § 2255(h); asserts actual innocence and ineffective assistance | Government: § 2255 is the exclusive remedy; Jones could have raised claims in his initial § 2255 and the savings clause is not met by mere procedural bars or untimeliness | Held: Denied — Jones failed to show § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective; § 2241 jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether actual innocence alone satisfies the § 2255(e) savings clause | Jones: actual innocence of the murder predicate satisfies savings clause (invoking Reyes-Requena) | Government: Tenth Circuit does not adopt Reyes-Requena; actual innocence irrelevant under Prost framework | Held: Denied — actual innocence does not satisfy the savings clause under Tenth Circuit precedent |
| Whether procedural bars (time-bar, § 2255(h)) render § 2255 inadequate | Jones: inability to file successive § 2255 makes § 2255 inadequate | Government: Procedural preclusion does not make § 2255 inadequate; courts have rejected this argument | Held: Denied — procedural bars do not render § 2255 inadequate |
| Whether IFP on appeal should be granted | Jones: seeks leave to proceed IFP | Government: IFP should be denied given lack of nonfrivolous argument | Held: Denied — IFP denied for lack of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinson v. United States, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (explaining § 2255(e) savings clause and test whether initial § 2255 could have tested the claim)
- Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2016) (discussing § 2255 savings clause application)
- Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996) (§ 2255 is the exclusive post-appeal remedy to attack validity of a sentence)
- Carvalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) (procedural preclusion of successive § 2255 does not make § 2255 inadequate)
- Abernathy v. Wandes, 713 F.3d 538 (10th Cir. 2013) (reaffirming Prost and rejecting Reyes-Requena savings-clause test)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (Fifth Circuit’s savings-clause test includes an actual-innocence prong; not adopted in Tenth Circuit)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (rare circumstances where § 2255 is inadequate)
- McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1997) (standards for IFP and habeas challenges)