Vauda Shipp, Jr. v. Rachel Chapa
698 F. App'x 202
5th Cir.2017Background
- Vauda Virgle Shipp, Jr., a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his conviction/sentence; the district court denied relief and the request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The district court held Shipp could not use § 2241 because he failed to show § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective (the § 2255 savings clause).
- Shipp argued Johnson and Welch invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) residual clause, rendering his sentencing statute nonexistent.
- He also raised claims alleging a Magistrate Judge’s bias and lack of authority.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and analyzed whether Shipp met the Reyes‑Requena two‑prong test to invoke the § 2255 savings clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shipp may attack his conviction/sentence via § 2241 under the § 2255 savings clause | Johnson/Welch invalidated ACCA residual clause, so his sentence was imposed under a nonexistent statute | Shipp failed to show § 2255 is inadequate; Johnson/Welch affect sentencing, not existence of the underlying substantive offense | Denied — Johnson/Welch do not satisfy Reyes‑Requena; sentencing challenges do not convert to claims of conviction of a nonexistent offense |
| Whether claims about Magistrate Judge bias/authority allow § 2241 relief | Magistrate’s alleged bias/authority errors vitiate proceedings | These claims are not based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision showing conviction of a nonexistent offense | Denied — claims do not meet savings‑clause requirements |
| Whether Shipp’s appeal raises a nonfrivolous issue for IFP on appeal | Shipp asserts substantial legal errors warranting appeal | Court: issues are frivolous because they fail the savings‑clause test | IFP denied; appeal dismissed as frivolous |
| Whether bail or appointment of counsel should be granted pending appeal | Requests made for bail and counsel | Court found appeal frivolous and did not warrant ancillary relief | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1982) (IFP on appeal requires pauper status and nonfrivolous issues)
- Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard of review and § 2255 savings‑clause framework for § 2241 petitions)
- Reyes‑Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (two‑prong test for savings clause: retroactive Supreme Court decision and circuit‑foreclosure)
- Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2000) (procedural inability to meet § 2255 does not make it inadequate)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause for sentencing purposes)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson error is retroactive on collateral review for sentencing claims)
- Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424 (5th Cir. 2005) (sentencing‑error claims do not satisfy savings‑clause requirement about nonexistent offenses)
- In re Bradford, 660 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2011) (sentencing/status as career offender is not a claim under the savings clause)