Richard Warner v. Rodney Chandler
690 F. App'x 216
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Warner, a federal prisoner convicted for transporting/shipping child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition claiming the district court lacked jurisdiction over his conviction.
- He sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) after the district court certified his appeal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith.
- Warner invoked the § 2255(e) "savings clause" to bring his jurisdictional challenge in a § 2241 petition rather than under § 2255.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction; Warner appealed the certification denying IFP and argued his claim met the savings-clause criteria.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Warner's claim qualified under the Reyes-Requena savings-clause test and whether his reliance on National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X established a retroactive basis showing a nonexistent offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warner may use § 2241 via the § 2255(e) savings clause to challenge conviction jurisdiction | Warner: Brand X establishes his conviction lacked a jurisdictional basis and thus he can proceed under § 2241 | Govt: Warner’s claim arises under § 2255 and does not meet the Reyes-Requena savings-clause criteria | Held: Denied — Warner did not satisfy savings-clause requirements and cannot proceed under § 2241 |
| Whether Brand X is a retroactive Supreme Court decision that shows conviction of a nonexistent offense | Warner: Brand X supports his jurisdictional challenge | Govt: Brand X predates his conviction and does not show offense nonexistent | Held: Brand X does not establish conviction of a nonexistent offense and is not a basis for savings-clause relief |
| Whether Warner’s procedural excuses (unawareness, waiver, successive-motion bar) make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective | Warner: Couldn’t raise the claim earlier or via § 2255 successor motion | Govt: Those excuses do not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective | Held: Excuses insufficient; § 2255 remedy remains adequate |
| Whether the district court abused certification that appeal is not in good faith | Warner: Appeal raises nonfrivolous legal points | Govt: Appeal frivolous because savings-clause not met | Held: Certification affirmed; appeal frivolous and IFP denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for certifying an appeal not taken in good faith and IFP review)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (good-faith inquiry limited to whether appeal involves legal points arguable on the merits)
- Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424 (5th Cir. 2005) (claims attacking conviction/sentence arise under § 2255)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (three-part test for savings-clause relief under § 2255(e))
- National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (agency deference decision relied on by Warner but not dispositive here)
- Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (procedural-default and adequacy of § 2255 remedy considerations)
- Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876 (5th Cir. 2000) (successive § 2255 motion restrictions and adequacy analysis)