Menter v. United States of America
3:17-cv-01886
M.D. Penn.Jun 6, 2019Background
- Derrick Menter was convicted in D.N.J. for conspiracy to murder a federal judge (18 U.S.C. §1117) after a 2011 jury trial and sentenced to life.
- Menter filed a §2255 motion in 2012 raising ineffective assistance, nondisclosure, and false-evidence claims; the sentencing court denied relief and a COA.
- He filed a belated direct appeal in 2015 which the Third Circuit dismissed as untimely.
- In 2017 Menter filed a §2241 habeas petition (transferred to M.D. Pa.) arguing actual innocence and that multiple Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Burrage, Elonis, McQuiggan) create retroactive, substantive changes rendering him entitled to §2241 relief.
- The district court considered whether §2255 was an inadequate or ineffective remedy under the Dorsainvil exception and whether intervening case law rendered Menter’s conduct noncriminal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2255 is inadequate or ineffective so Menter may proceed under §2241 | Menter contends recent Supreme Court decisions are substantive, retroactive, and unavailable at his trial/§2255, so §2255 is inadequate | Government argues §2255 is the proper route, and Menter’s claims do not meet the narrow Dorsainvil exception | Court: §2255 is not inadequate; §2241 petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether intervening Supreme Court decisions (Burrage, Elonis, etc.) render Menter’s conduct noncriminal | Menter claims those decisions change substantive law applicable to his conviction, supporting §2241 relief | Respondent: The cited decisions do not alter the substantive elements of §1117 conspiracy to murder; many are inapplicable or not retroactive | Court: No substantive change to §1117; cited decisions inapplicable or not retroactive |
| Whether Burrage and similar rulings are retroactive on collateral review | Menter asserts Burrage and others apply retroactively to his case | Respondent: Burrage has not been made retroactive and does not meet Dorsainvil exception | Court: Burrage not retroactive for collateral review; cannot ground §2241 relief |
| Whether sentencing-related changes (or statutory interpretation affecting sentencing elements) permit §2241 relief | Menter relies on cases addressing mens rea/elemental issues to attack sentence severity | Respondent: §2241 is not available for sentencing challenges; Dorsainvil exception is limited to cases where underlying conduct is rendered noncriminal | Court: Sentencing/elemental changes do not suffice; §2241 unavailable for such claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsainvil v. United States, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir.) (narrow exception when later decision renders conduct noncriminal)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir.) (§2255 is presumptive remedy; §2241 relief is rare)
- Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.) (statutory limits do not make §2255 inadequate)
- United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643 (3d Cir.) (gatekeeping/statutes of limitation do not render §2255 inadequate)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (habeas petitioner may overcome AEDPA limitations with convincing showing of actual innocence)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (evidentiary/causation holding — not made retroactive for collateral review)
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (mens rea requirement for §875(c); inapplicable to §1117 conviction)
- Application of Galante, 437 F.2d 1164 (3d Cir.) (strict construction of §2255(e) inadequacy exception)
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (Presumption that §2255 is proper route for collateral attack)