Wilfredo A. Zalaya v. Secretary, Florida department of Corrections, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14845

Background

Zelaya, a Honduran national, was deported in 1996 after an in-absentia immigration hearing; he later reentered the U.S. and was convicted in federal court (8 U.S.C. § 1326) for illegal reentry. His conviction and direct appeal were unsuccessful in 2002.
He did not file a § 2255 motion after his conviction; instead, in 2011 an immigration judge rescinded his 1996 deportation order and DHS later terminated proceedings.
In 2011 Zelaya filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming the rescission made him actually innocent of § 1326 and invoking the § 2255(e) "savings clause."
The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction (concluding Zelaya could not satisfy the savings clause). The court initially dismissed with prejudice but the circuit court directed dismissal without prejudice.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit addressed (1) whether the petition should be recharacterized as a § 2255 motion, and (2) whether Zelaya could access § 2241 relief through the § 2255(e) savings clause (actual-innocence gateway).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court should have recharacterized Zelaya's pro se § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion	Zelaya argued the court should treat the pleading as § 2255 to consider timeliness and merits	Government argued petition challenged federal conviction and was properly a § 2241 invoking savings clause; recharacterization would have adverse consequences	Court held the district court did not err: it properly respected Zelaya's express choice to proceed under § 2241 and was not required to recharacterize without Castro notice
Whether Zelaya may proceed under § 2241 via the § 2255(e) savings clause	Zelaya argued the rescission of the deportation order made him actually innocent and § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective	Government argued Zelaya could and should have brought a § 2255 motion; statutory limits do not make § 2255 inadequate	Court held Zelaya failed to demonstrate § 2255 was inadequate; actual-innocence claim alone does not open the § 2241 gateway
Whether Wofford or similar tests permit Zelaya to invoke the savings clause for a conviction challenge	Zelaya relied on savings-clause principles and actual innocence to escape § 2255 limits	Government contended Wofford-type relief requires retroactive Supreme Court decision or other narrow circumstances not present	Court held under Wofford (and subsequent precedent) Zelaya cannot access the savings clause; his claim rested on established law (Mendoza-Lopez and § 1326(d)) available when convicted
Relief and procedural disposition	Zelaya sought discharge or remand for relief on his federal conviction	Government sought dismissal of § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction	Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction but vacated the district court's with-prejudice label and remanded for dismissal without prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (courts must notify prisoner before recharacterizing prose pleading as § 2255 motion and warn of consequences)
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual-innocence gateway may excuse habeas timing bars)
United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987) (deportation order used to convict requires opportunity to challenge order)
Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (articulated test for savings-clause access in certain claims)
Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013) (discussed savings clause and actual-opportunity requirement)
Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (clarified limits of Wofford dicta for sentence claims)
Hayman v. United States, 342 U.S. 205 (1952) (background on § 2255 as primary vehicle for federal post-conviction relief)
Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing § 2241 and § 2255 remedies)