Kapordelis v. Fox
707 F. App'x 545
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kapordelis was convicted in the N.D. Ga. in 2007 of multiple child-pornography offenses and sentenced to 420 months imprisonment; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
- He filed a § 2255 motion in 2011 raising numerous claims; the district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied relief.
- In 2014 he filed a § 2241 petition in S.D. Ill., arguing the § 2255 proceeding was defective because the § 2255 judge failed to rule on a recusal motion; that petition was dismissed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- In 2017 Kapordelis filed a pro se § 2241 petition in W.D. Okla., again arguing the Northern District of Georgia’s § 2255 proceeding was inadequate due to judicial bias and an unruly failure to recuse, seeking consideration of claims raised in his § 2255.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal (finding § 2255 adequate and that Kapordelis failed to meet § 2255(h) requirements); the district court adopted the R&R but dismissed without prejudice for lack of statutory jurisdiction under the § 2255 savings-clause framework.
- This appeal challenges the dismissal of the § 2241 petition as outside the savings clause gateway of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255(e) savings clause permits § 2241 review | Kapordelis: initial § 2255 was inadequate because the § 2255 judge was biased and failed to rule on recusal, stripping jurisdiction | Government/District Ct: § 2255 was adequate; bias claims were considered and rejected in § 2255 proceeding; prior § 2241 denial controls | Court: Savings clause not satisfied; § 2255 provided an adequate opportunity; § 2241 jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether judicial bias/recusal claim made § 2255 void | Kapordelis: judge’s alleged homophobic statements and refusal to rule on recusal rendered § 2255 proceedings structurally defective | Respondent: bias claims were raised in § 2255 and rejected; record shows substantive findings supported conviction/sentence | Court: Bias claims were considered on § 2255 (and on direct appeal); not a basis to deem § 2255 inadequate |
| Whether prior § 2241 in Seventh Circuit precludes relief here | Kapordelis: seeks rehearing of same gateway theory | Respondent: Seventh Circuit already rejected the same theory; no meaningful distinction now | Court: Prior § 2241 ruling persuasive; nothing materially different justifying another outcome |
| Whether constitutional-avoidance requires § 2241 review | Kapordelis: barring § 2241 raises constitutional concerns | Respondent: no showing § 2255 was inadequate; avoidance not triggered | Court: Constitutional-avoidance not applicable; statutory savings-clause test not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (articulates the § 2255(e) savings-clause test and that it concerns whether the claim could have been tested in an initial § 2255)
- Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) (circumstances invoking § 2255(e) are extremely limited)
- Abernathy v. Wandes, 713 F.3d 538 (10th Cir. 2013) (lack of savings-clause satisfaction deprives court of statutory jurisdiction to hear § 2241 claims)
- Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for district court orders on habeas jurisdiction)
- United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (direct-appeal decision detailing underlying offenses and affirming sentence)
- Smith v. Yeager, 393 U.S. 122 (1968) (res judicata principles generally inapplicable to successive § 2241 petitions)