Michael Allen v. Richard Ives
950 F.3d 1184
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Michael Allen pleaded guilty (1997) to federal drug and firearms offenses and was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §§4B1.1–4B1.2, raising his guideline range and minimum sentence.
- Two Connecticut prior convictions (including a marijuana sale under Conn. Gen. Stat. §21a-277(a)) were treated as controlled-substance predicates at sentencing; state records are unavailable.
- Allen’s initial 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion was denied and affirmed; in 2017 he filed a §2241 petition in Oregon asserting that Mathis/Descamps retroactively show his Connecticut conviction is not a predicate, so he is actually innocent of the career-offender enhancement.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, relying on Marrero v. Ives; Allen appealed and the Ninth Circuit granted a COA on jurisdiction.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held Allen’s claim qualifies under the §2255(e) “escape hatch” (actual innocence + no unobstructed procedural shot) and reversed; court addressed mootness (release) and potential supervised-release relief.
- A dissent argued Marrero controls: Allen’s claim is a purely legal challenge to a Guidelines classification, not factual innocence, so §2241 jurisdiction is improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §2241 jurisdiction via §2255(e) "escape hatch" | Allen: §2255 inadequate; may use §2241 because Mathis/Descamps show actual innocence of career-offender enhancement | Govt/district court: Marrero bars career-offender challenges via §2241; §2255 is exclusive | Majority: Jurisdiction exists; escape hatch applies; reversed dismissal |
| Actual innocence of sentence/enhancement | Allen: Retroactive Mathis/Descamps render his CT marijuana conviction non-predicate => actually innocent of enhancement | Govt/district court/dissent: This is a legal classification issue, not factual innocence under Bousley | Majority: Claim cognizable — if predicate didn’t exist, enhancement was factually absent; dissent disagrees |
| Procedural shot / second-or-successive §2255 | Allen: Mathis/Descamps arose after his direct appeal and first §2255; second §2255 is unavailable under §2255(h) => no unobstructed shot | Govt: Remedies under §2255 framework govern; §2255(h) limits second motions | Majority: Allen lacked an unobstructed procedural shot; second §2255 inadequate here |
| Retroactivity of Mathis/Descamps on collateral review | Allen: Mathis/Descamps change substantive reach of predicate definitions and apply retroactively to collateral review | Dissent: These are clarifications, not new substantive rules; Teague analysis unnecessary and they are not substantive | Majority: Mathis/Descamps apply retroactively for §2241 / first §2255 review and are substantive for retroactivity purposes; dissent rejects this |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (U.S. 2016) (limits when modified categorical approach applies; focuses on elements vs. means)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (U.S. 2013) (restricts use of modified categorical approach to divisible statutes)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1998) (actual innocence standard for collateral claims)
- Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012) (held pure Guidelines career-offender challenges not cognizable as actual innocence under escape hatch)
- Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2006) (§2255 generally exclusive; escape hatch standards)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (U.S. 2016) (substantive rules apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (articulated categorical approach)
- United States v. Maybeck, 23 F.3d 888 (4th Cir. 1994) (recognized actual innocence where prior conviction was mischaracterized and did not qualify as predicate)
- Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2005) (possibility of supervised-release reduction can avoid mootness)