489 F. App'x 864
6th Cir.2012Background
- Jones, a federal prisoner, was convicted in 2000 of two counts felon in possession of a firearm and making false statements to acquire a firearm; sentenced as armed career criminal to 327 months.
- His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and one conviction later vacated via §2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel.
- In 2009 Jones filed a §2241 habeas petition in the Western District of Tennessee raising actual innocence of the ACC designation, government suppression of evidence, and inadequate medical care (third claim abandoned).
- The district court dismissed the §2241 petition as not cognizable and denied reconsideration; on appeal Jones asserts §2241 proper for actual innocence and withheld evidence.
- The Sixth Circuit reviews de novo and recognizes the general rule that challenges to conviction/sentence lie in §2255, with narrow §2241 exceptions for actual innocence due to intervening law or inadequate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones can use §2241 for actual innocence of an ACC designation. | Jones relies on Begay to show actual innocence. | Actual innocence of a sentencing enhancement under §2241 not allowed without intervening change in law. | Not allowed; no intervening change showing actual innocence of ACC. |
| Whether the withholding of evidence establishes admissible §2241 relief. | Government suppression of exculpatory evidence could permit §2241 relief. | No §2241 relief unless intervening law makes remedy inadequate/ineffective. | Remedy inadequate only if intervening change; no basis shown here. |
| Whether the §2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective to permit §2241 relief. | §2255 is inadequate due to previous §2255 filing history. | Inadequacy not shown; may pursue successive §2255 via authorization in appropriate circuit. | Remedy not shown inadequate; §2241 relief denied. |
| Whether Jones could challenge the government’s withholding of evidence in the appropriate court through a §2241 route. | Evidence suppression supports §2241; actual innocence claim. | Claim not premised on intervening law; must proceed via §2255/authorization route. | Cannot proceed under §2241; may seek authorization for successive §2255 in the proper court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (intervening law definition of violent felony for ACC)
- Raymer v. Barron, 82 F. App’x 431 (6th Cir. 2003) (actual innocence of sentencing enhancements generally not §2241)
- Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2000) (actual innocence claims of career-offender under §2241 not allowed)
- In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (challenge to ACC under §2241 improper)
- United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458 (6th Cir. 2001) (establishes inadequacy of remedy standards for §2241)
- Martin v. Perez, 319 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 2003) (burden to show §2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective)
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (limits on §2241 relief for sentence errors when not exceeding statutory maximum)