Maxwell v. United States
5:10-cv-00151
S.D. Miss.Nov 3, 2010Background
- Maxwell, an inmate at FCI Yazoo City, filed a §2241 petition for habeas relief on September 20, 2010.
- Maxwell was convicted in 1988 in the District of Maryland of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine; he received five years' imprisonment plus a four-year special parole term.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed Maxwell's conviction on November 29, 1989.
- Maxwell moved for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); the Maryland district court denied that motion on June 18, 2009.
- In his petition and amended petition, Maxwell asserted ineffective assistance of counsel and related claims, including Batson challenges and alleged suppression failures, and invoked Massaro v. United States and several Supreme Court decisions as grounds for relief.
- The district court concluded that Maxwell's §2241 petition attacks the conviction and sentence itself rather than the execution of a sentence, thus requiring dismissal or conversion to a §2255 motion, and that Maxwell failed to satisfy the §2255 savings clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §2241 proper for challenging the conviction/sentencing? | Maxwell argues for relief under §2241 based on cited Supreme Court decisions. | Respondents contend §2241 is improper for attacking errors occurring at trial/sentencing; §2255 is appropriate. | No; §2241 is not proper to attack the conviction/sentencing here. |
| Does Maxwell meet the §2255 savings clause (Reyes-Requena) prongs to proceed via §2241? | Maxwell relies on savings clause based on retroactive Supreme Court decisions. | Maxwell fails to show a retroactively applicable decision rendering his conduct nonexistent. | Not met; the first Reyes-Requena prong is not satisfied and the second prong need not be addressed. |
| If savings clause not satisfied, what is the disposition of the petition? | Requests vacatur and reversal of conviction; seeks habeas relief under §2241. | If not properly under §2241, and savings clause fails, petition must be dismissed. | Petition dismissed; §2241 not proper and §2255 savings clause not satisfied; dismissal without prejudice as frivolous to the extent construed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (savings clause test for §2255 in §2241 petitions)
- Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (savings clause requires adequacy of §2255 remedy; prior unsuccessful motion not enough)
- Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2001) (AEDPA second/successive limitations do not render §2255 inadequate)
- Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2000) (nonexistent offense concept referenced in savings clause discussion)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (Massaro on retroactivity/ineffective assistance considerations)
- United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1992) (proper respondent/district for habeas petitions; execution context)