707 F. App'x 509
10th Cir.2017Background
- Johnny Scott Warren, a pro se federal prisoner, is serving a 240-month sentence for federal drug and firearms convictions.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed his convictions and held the warrantless search of his home complied with the Fourth Amendment and Colorado law, United States v. Warren, 566 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2009).
- Warren’s initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied; this Court denied a certificate of appealability and repeatedly refused authorization to file second or successive § 2255 motions on related grounds.
- Warren filed a § 2241 habeas petition claiming actual innocence based on the contention that the drug evidence was seized in violation of the Colorado Constitution (state-law search/seizure claim).
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for failure to show § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective under the § 2255(e) savings clause; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warren may use § 2241 via § 2255(e) savings clause to challenge conviction | Warren: § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective; he is actually innocent because evidence was obtained in violation of Colorado Constitution | Government: § 2255 is the proper vehicle; Warren cannot show § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective | Held: Warren failed to show § 2255 was inadequate/ineffective; § 2241 relief not available |
| Whether federal habeas may redress alleged state-law (Colorado Constitution) search violation | Warren: State-constitutional suppression should supply habeas relief and support actual innocence | Government: Federal habeas does not lie for state-law errors absent a federal due-process violation | Held: Federal habeas does not remedy pure state-law errors; claim fails on that basis |
| Whether the claim is procedurally barred by direct-appeal disposition | Warren: Argued claim now; characterized as actual innocence | Government: Claim was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal and is procedurally barred in collateral attack | Held: Claim was either raised or available on direct appeal; procedural bar prevents collateral § 2255 relief and does not make § 2255 inadequate |
| Whether Warren can invoke actual-innocence gateway to bypass § 2255(e) | Warren: Labels issue as actual innocence to access § 2241 review | Government: Suppression of evidence does not establish factual innocence; no new exculpatory evidence exists | Held: Actual-innocence gateway requires new reliable evidence of factual innocence; Warren presented none, so gateway unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas does not lie for errors of state law)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence means factual innocence, not legal insufficiency)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual-innocence gateway requires new reliable evidence not presented at trial)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual-innocence gateway and new evidence requirement)
- United States v. Warren, 566 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2009) (direct appeal holding search complied with Fourth Amendment and Colorado law)
- Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (describing § 2255 as the primary vehicle to challenge sentence)
- Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2011) (§ 2255(e) savings-clause standard explained)
- Abernathy v. Wandes, 713 F.3d 538 (10th Cir. 2013) (burden on prisoner to show § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective)
- Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2016) (procedural bar does not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective)
- United States v. Prichard, 875 F.2d 789 (10th Cir. 1989) (issues disposed of on direct appeal generally cannot be relitigated in § 2255)