Sandlain v. English
714 F. App'x 827
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2015 Blake Sandlain pled guilty in the Eastern District of Michigan to drug distribution and being a felon in possession; the district court sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior convictions.
- Sandlain filed a § 2255 motion (ineffective assistance claims) in 2015 that was denied; Sixth Circuit denied COA and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- After Johnson and Mathis, Sandlain obtained Sixth Circuit permission to file a second § 2255 raising Johnson-based arguments; that failed because Beckles held the Guidelines’ residual clause not void for vagueness.
- In June 2017 Sandlain filed a pro se § 2241 in the District of Kansas seeking to challenge the career-offender enhancement via Mathis (arguing Michigan’s drug statute contains alternate means, so the modified categorical approach was wrongly applied).
- The Kansas district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Mathis was not retroactive on collateral review in the Tenth and many Sixth Circuit decisions, and declined to transfer to the sentencing district.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit held Sandlain could not invoke the § 2255 savings clause to proceed under § 2241 because § 2255 was an adequate vehicle he could have used earlier; dismissal affirmed but remanded to clarify dismissal is for lack of statutory jurisdiction (i.e., without prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2241 was a proper vehicle via the § 2255 savings clause to raise a Mathis claim | Sandlain: § 2255 was inadequate/ineffective because circuit law precluded his Mathis-type challenge and Mathis postdated his first § 2255 filing | Gov: § 2255 is the proper and adequate vehicle; Sandlain could and should have raised the claim in his initial § 2255 or sought en banc/certiorari; being barred from a successive § 2255 doesn’t make § 2255 inadequate | Held: § 2241 was not proper; the savings clause does not apply and the district court lacked statutory jurisdiction (dismissal to be without prejudice) |
| Whether Mathis should apply retroactively on collateral review | Sandlain: Mathis invalidates use of the modified categorical approach for his Michigan statute and should apply retroactively | Gov: Mathis not made retroactive by Supreme Court; circuit precedent holds it is not retroactive | Held: Court addressed merits but determined no need to decide retroactivity after ruling § 2241 was improper; district court’s merits disposition reversed to jurisdictional dismissal without prejudice |
| Whether Sandlain is actually innocent of career-offender enhancement | Sandlain: He is actually innocent under Mathis | Gov: Actual innocence requires new, exculpatory evidence; misuse of predicate for guidelines does not show actual innocence | Held: Not established — no new evidence; assertion does not satisfy actual-innocence gateway |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice and whether ifp on appeal appropriate | Sandlain: Requested IFP and merits relief | Gov: District court denied ifp and dismissed as lacking jurisdiction | Held: Affirm dismissal but remand to clarify it is for want of statutory jurisdiction (without prejudice); IFP request on appeal denied as moot and fees remain due |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (limits use of modified categorical approach where statute’s alternatives are means rather than elements)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge under Due Process Clause)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness)
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (savings clause not satisfied merely because a claim was foreclosed by circuit precedent; § 2255 adequate)
- Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2016) (discussing limits of savings clause and actual-innocence requirement)
- Abernathy v. Wandes, 713 F.3d 538 (10th Cir. 2013) (statutory jurisdiction threshold for § 2241 petitions invoking savings clause)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (statutory interpretation vindicated on direct review; discussed in context of savings-clause precedent)
- Cohen v. Longshore, 621 F.3d 1311 (10th Cir. 2010) (dismissal without an express statement is treated as with prejudice for appellate purposes)