Suggs v. Purdue, 1:14-cv-00021

Background

Ricardo M. Suggs, a federal prisoner, was indicted (June 2006) for being a felon in possession of a firearm; while on bond he shot a government witness and the witness’s mother in July 2006. A superseding indictment added witness-tampering counts.
The court bifurcated the felon-in-possession count; juries convicted Suggs of the felon-in-possession charge and two counts of witness tampering; he was sentenced to concurrent 324-month terms (April 2007).
The Fourth Circuit affirmed Suggs’s convictions on direct appeal; certiorari was denied. A § 2255 motion to vacate was dismissed and an appeal failed for lack of COA.
In 2014 Suggs filed a § 2241 petition claiming actual innocence of the federal witness-tampering offenses because (he says) his conduct was retaliation for which no federal proceeding was foreseeable and therefore not within § 1512’s reach.
The government moved to dismiss/for summary judgment arguing (1) no change in substantive law that would render Suggs’s conduct noncriminal and (2) the record establishes intent to prevent testimony; the magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for the government.
The district court adopted the R&R, treated the response as a Rule 56 matter, found Suggs failed the Jones savings-clause test and failed to show actual innocence, and dismissed the § 2241 petition with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2241 is available under § 2255(e) (the savings clause) to challenge the § 1512 convictions	Suggs: substantive law changed (Arthur Andersen/Fowler) so his conduct is not criminal; § 2255 is inadequate	Gov't: no substantive change; prior law already required a federal nexus; Suggs cannot meet Jones elements	Court: Denied; Suggs fails Jones’ second element — no change in substantive law; § 2255 not inadequate
Whether Suggs is actually innocent of § 1512 offenses because he intended retaliation or had a pending plea (no foreseeable federal proceeding)	Suggs: he intended to plead guilty to the original charge so no trial was imminent; shootings were retaliatory, not intended to prevent testimony	Gov't: evidence shows witness was subpoenaed and identified; Suggs confronted witness and said intent to stop him; no signed plea, plea bargaining not enforceable to bar prosecution	Court: Denied; record shows a foreseeable federal proceeding and intent to prevent testimony; promissory estoppel/plea argument fails
Whether prior Supreme Court cases (Arthur Andersen, Fowler) create a new limiting rule that renders Suggs’s conduct noncriminal	Suggs: those decisions impose a new ‘federal nexus’ requirement that was not applied earlier	Gov't: those cases do not change the law in a way that would make Suggs’s acts noncriminal	Court: Denied; Arthur Andersen/Aguilar predate Suggs, Fowler is consistent with them — no new rule that would meet Jones
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Suggs: factual disputes (intent, foreseeability) justify review	Gov't: record and trial transcript establish intent and foreseeability; no genuine dispute	Court: Granted government summary judgment; viewed evidence in light most favorable to Suggs but found no triable issue of fact supporting actual innocence

Key Cases Cited

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) (requires a nexus to a foreseeable federal proceeding for obstruction convictions)
Fowler v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2045 (2011) (clarifies foreseeability and communication with federal law enforcement in obstruction context)
United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) (holding defendant must know actions likely to affect federal proceeding)
In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000) (sets three-part test for invoking § 2255 savings clause via § 2241)
In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 (4th Cir. 1997) (discusses when § 2255 is inadequate and § 2241 is available)
United States v. Suggs, [citation="266 F. App'x 258"] (4th Cir. 2008) (Fourth Circuit affirmed Suggs’s convictions on direct appeal)