Stine v. Davis
442 F. App'x 405
10th Cir.2011Background
- Stine challenges his federal sentence for career-offender designation based on two prior escape convictions, arguing the designation was unlawful under Chambers v. United States.
- He seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 via § 2255(e) savings clause because § 2255 is allegedly inadequate or ineffective to test the detention.
- He previously filed a § 2255 motion and was unsuccessful, creating a potential bar to a successive petition under § 2255(h).
- The district court and this court analyze whether § 2255(e) permits a § 2241 petition testing the legality of the sentence.
- The court applies Prost v. Anderson to assess the availability of the savings clause and ultimately rejects it for Stine.
- The court notes that Stine’s § 2241 petition was properly dismissed as an inadequate vehicle, affirming the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2255(e) savings clause permits §2241 for sentence challenges | Stine argues §2255 is inadequate/ineffective to test detention | Stine's §2255 is adequate for testing the legality | No; savings clause not applicable |
| Could Chambers-type argument have been raised in initial §2255 motion | Yes, available at initial §2255 stage | Chambers argument could have been raised earlier | No; could have been raised earlier but still not suitable under savings clause |
| Application of other circuits’ savings-clause tests | Savings clause valid under some tests | All circuits reject for sentence enhancements | No; §2255 is adequate and effective in testing sentencing legality |
| Whether district court properly dismissed the §2241 petition | Dismissal was improper | Dismissal proper for lack of savings clause | Properly dismissed |
| Impact of Chambers decision timing on relief | Timing supports relief | Timing irrelevant to savings clause viability | Timing does not salvage savings-clause relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (governs use of the savings clause for legality challenges to sentencing)
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (test to determine applicability of §2255(e) savings clause)
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc; savings clause on sentencing enhancements)
- Unthank v. Jett, 549 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2008) (savings clause analysis for sentencing challenges)