Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (June 26, 2015) The - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

F E DE RAL HABE AS BASI CS F OR L I T I GAT I NG JOHNSON CL AI MS NOVE MBE R 18-19, 2015

Ann He ste r F e de ra l De fe nde rs o f We ste rn No rth Ca ro lina , I nc . Ann_He ste r@ fd.o rg

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (June 26, 2015)

• The ACCA’s residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is

unconstitutionally vague and violates due process.

• ACCA residual clause:

“otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”

• To request FDO training branch materials related to

Johnson, email Lisa_Porcari@ao.uscourts.gov with your name, title, and office.

Provisions other than ACCA with residual clauses affected by Johnson:

 Guide line s:



Ca re e r o ffe nd e r, 4B1.2(a )(2)



E nha nc e me nts fo r fire a rms o ffe nse s, 2K 2.1 (inc o rpo ra te s c a re e r

• ffe nd e r d e finitio n)



Gra d e s o f supe rvise d re le a se vio la tio ns, 7B1.1 (inc o rpo ra te s c a re e r

• ffe nd e r d e finitio n)

 8th Cir. no te : In US v. T

aylo r, 2015 WL 5928562 (8th Cir. Oc t. 9, 2015), Co urt o f Appe a ls sa ys tha t the re a so ning in US v. Wive ll, 893 F .2d 156 (8th Cir. 1990), tha t g uide line s c a nno t b e unc o nstitutio na lly va g ue b e c a use the y do no t pro sc rib e c o nduc t is do ub tful a fte r Jo hnso n.

PROVISIONS OTHER THAN ACCA WITH RESIDUAL CLAUSES AFFECTED BY JOHNSON:

 Sta tute :  18 U.S.C. § 16(b ) de finitio n o f “c rime o f vio le nc e –

use d fo r de te rmining 8-le ve l “a g g ra va te d fe lo ny” b ump in USSG § 2L 1.2(b )(1)(C) a nd ma ny o the r fe de ra l pro visio ns

Se e Dimaya v. L

ync h, 2015 WL 6123546 (9th Cir. 2015) (a pplying Jo hnso n to § 16(b ))

 18 U.S.C. § 924(c )(3)(B) – use o r c a rry fire a rm during

a nd in re la tio n to a ny c rime o f vio le nc e , o r po sse ss fire a rm in furthe ra nc e o f c rime o f vio le nc e .

OVERVIEW: THREE FEDERAL HABEAS VEHICLES

1. I nitia l Pe titio ns unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2255 2. Se c o nd o r Suc c e ssive (“SOS”) Pe titio ns unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2255 3. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Pe titio ns file d unde r Sa ving s Cla use o f 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e ).

INITIAL 2255 PETITIONS

Ye s! I

t’ s a n 11-ste p a na lysis!



Is the conviction or recidivist sentencing enhancement negated by Supreme Court or Circuit decision?



Is the 2255 petition an initial petition – not a successor?



Is the claim cognizable?



Is the Supreme Court or Circuit decision upon which claim is based retroactive on collateral review?



Is the claim timely under the AEDPA statute of limitations provision (28 U.S.C. § 2255(f))?



If not timely, does equitable tolling excuse the statute of limitations?



If no equitable tolling, does actual innocence excuse the statute of limitations?



Did your client procedurally default his claim?



Is procedural default excused by cause and prejudice?



Is procedural default excused by actual innocence?



If district court denies petition, how do you appeal?

INITIAL SECTION 2255 CHECKLIST

I s the c o nvic tio n o r re c idivist se nte nc ing e nha nc e me nt ne g a te d b y a Supre me Co urt

• r Circ uit de c isio n?

Step 1:

POSSIBL E SCE NARIOS:

Be c a use o f Jo hnso n, 1. Clie nt ha s b e e n c o nvic te d fo r c o nduc t tha t is no lo ng e r c rimina l unde r sta tute o f c o nvic tio n (924(c )); o r 2. Clie nt is no lo ng e r sub je c t to a c a re e r

• ffe nde r, ACCA, o r o the r re c idivist se nte nc ing

e nha nc e me nt tha t re lie d o n a n unc o nstitutio na lly va g ue re sidua l c la use .

I s the 2255 pe titio n a n initia l pe titio n – no t a suc c e sso r?

STEP 2:

A PE T IT ION IS NOTCONSIDE RE D SE COND OR SUCCE SSIVE WHE N:



Your client has not previously filed a 2255 motion.



Your client used his first 2255 motion solely to reinstate his right to direct appeal via IAC claim.



Your client’s prior 2255 was not determined on the merits.

 Client voluntarily dismissed prior motion without conceding that petition

lacked merit

 Court dismissed motion without prejudice  The prior 2255 motion was dismissed due to some technical deficiency

unrelated to the substantive claims for relief.

 BUT: Claims dismissed as time-barred or procedurally defaulted ARE on

the merits.



The subsequent 2255 motion is a motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 filed before the district court rules on the merits.



The subsequent 2255 motion was filed while the initial motion was still pending.

MORE SIT UAT IONS WHE RE PE T IT ION IS NOTCONSIDE RE D SE COND OR SUCCE SSIVE

 The subsequent 2255 motion presents a claim that was not ripe at time of first motion.  The court limited the presentation of substantive claims in the prior 2255.  The prisoner obtained relief on a prior motion and the subsequent motion raised only

claims that originated from retrial or re-sentencing.

 The prior 2255 motion was incorrectly dismissed as untimely or as second or successive.

See Another Bite at the Apple, Janice L. Bergmann, for case cites.

STEP 3:

I s the c la im c o g niza b le ?

COGNIZABL E CL AIMS UNDE R 2255(A)

 Se nte nc e is in e xc e ss o f sta tuto ry ma ximum.  Co nvic tio n o r se nte nc e vio la te s the la ws o f the Unite d Sta te s

a nd re sults in a c o mple te misc a rria g e o f justic e .

 Co nvic tio n o r se nte nc e vio la te s the Co nstitutio n  Co nvic tio n o r se nte nc e is in e xc e ss o f the c o urt’ s jurisdic tio n.  Co nvic tio n o r se nte nc e is o the rwise sub je c t to c o lla te ra l a tta c k

E rro r tha t is ne ithe r jurisdic tio na l no r c o nstitutio na l must b e “a funda me nta l de fe c t whic h inhe re ntly re sults in a c o mple te misc a rria g e o f justic e .”

A note about Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2011):

 Ho lds tha t c a re e r-o ffe nde r

Guide line e rro r is no t a c o mple te misc a rria g e o f justic e c o g niza b le unde r 2255.

 Sun Be ar do e s no t a pply to

Jo hnso n c la ims, b e c a use tho se c la ims a re c onstitutional.

STEP 4:

I s the c la im b a se d o n a re tro a c tive Supre me Co urt o r Circ uit de c isio n?

Note : Re troac tivity is an affirmative de fe nse that Gove rnme nt c an waive .

A SIDE NOTE ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND WAIVER:

 Go ve rnme nt’ s fa ilure to ra ise a n a ffirma tive

de fe nse wa ive s it, b ut c o urt still ma y a pply a n a ffirma tive de fe nse sua spo nte

 UNL

E SS g o ve rnme nt de lib e ra te ly wa ive s the de fe nse .

 I

n tha t c a se , it wo uld b e a n a b use o f judic ia l disc re tio n to o ve rride the g o ve rnme nt’ s de lib e ra te wa ive r. Day v. Mc Do no ug h, 547 U.S. 198, 202 (2006); Wo o d v. Milyard, 132 S. Ct. 1826 (2012)

IS INT E RVE NING SUPRE ME COURT OR CIRCUIT COURT DE CISION RE T ROACT IVE ?

Under Teague v. United States, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), a new rule of criminal procedure is not generally retroactive on collateral review. A rule established by an intervening decision is only retroactive if:

1. It is an old rule (meaning that rule established by intervening case was dictated by then- existing precedent upon which all reasonable jurists would have felt compelled to rule in the defendant’s favor). See Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518 (1997);

2. It is a substantive rule (the intervening decision, on constitutional or statutory grounds, narrows “the range of conduct” criminalized by the statute or “prohibits a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or

• ffense.” See Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 353; Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S.

461, 477 (1993)); or

3. It is a watershed rule of criminal procedure (must “alter our understanding of bedrock procedural elements” essential to fairness of proceeding) See Teague, 489 U.S. at 311.

IS JOHNSON RETROACTIVE?

T he g o ve rnme nt ha s c o nc e de d tha t Jo hnso n is sub sta ntive a nd re tro a c tive in ACCA c a se s, b ut it is a sse rting tha t the rule is pro c e dura l a nd no n-re tro a c tive “a s a pplie d” in c a re e r o ffe nde r c a se s.

Sub sta ntive : Baile y v. Unite d State s, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) Unite d State s v. Santo s, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) Be g ay v. Unite d State s, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) No t sub sta ntive : Appre ndi v. Ne w Je rse y, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) Unite d State s v. Bo o ke r, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) Alle yne v. Unite d State s, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)

STEP 5:

I s the c la im time ly unde r the AE DPA sta tute o f limita tio ns pro visio n (28 U.S.C. § 2255(f))?

Note : Statute of L imitations is an affirmative de fe nse that the gove rnme nt c an waive .

TWO RELEVANT LIMITATIONS PROVISIONS NUMBER 1:

A pe titio n is time ly unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) if file d within

• ne ye a r a fte r judg me nt o f c o nvic tio n b e c o me s fina l.

When does conviction become final? It depends.

WHEN DOES CONVICTION BECOME FINAL?

 Clie nt file d c e rt. pe titio n:

 Co nvic tio n is fina l the da y the Supre me Co urt de nie s c e rt. o r

a ffirms o n me rits. Clay v. Unite d State s, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003).

 Clie nt file d a dire c t a ppe a l b ut no c e rt. pe titio n:

 Judg me nt b e c o me s fina l whe n 90-da y pe rio d fo r filing c e rt.

pe titio n e xpire s. Clay, 537 U.S. a t 527.

 Clie nt did no t a ppe a l:

 Circ uit split.

 Mo st c irc uits ho ld tha t c o nvic tio n is fina l o n the da te time to file

no tic e o f a ppe a l e xpire s.

 4th Circ uit ho lds tha t judg me nt is fina l o n the da y the distric t c o urt

e nte rs judg me nt.

NUMBER 2:

A pe titio n is time ly unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) if file d:

 within o ne ye a r o f  Supre me Co urt de c isio n e sta b lishing “ne wly re c o g nize d rig ht”  tha t is re tro a c tive o n c o lla te ra l re vie w.

Jo hnso n c la ims MUST b e file d b y June 26, 2016!

STEP 6:

I f pe titio ne r’ s mo tio n isn’ t time ly, do e s e q uita b le to lling e xc use the sta tute o f limita tio ns?

HOW DO I PROVE THAT EQUITABLE TOLLING APPLIES?

A pe titio ne r must sho w:

(1)

T ha t he ha s b e e n pursuing his rig hts dilig e ntly (with re a so na b le dilig e nc e , no t ma ximum fe a sib le dilig e nc e ); a nd

(2)

T ha t so me e xtra o rdina ry c irc umsta nc e sto o d in his wa y a nd pre ve nte d time ly filing Ho lland v. F lo rida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010). Ho lland re je c ts rig id pe r se rule s a nd re q uire s c o urts to c o nside r e q uita b le to lling o n a c a se -b y-c a se b a sis.

COURTS HAVE APPLIED EQUITABLE TOLLING WHEN…

 Pe titio ne r re pe a te dly re minds c o unse l to file

fe de ra l ha b e a s c la im, a nd c o unse l fa ils to file a nd a lso fa ils to info rm pe titio ne r o f sta te c o urt de c isio n tha t re -sta rts limita tio ns pe rio d. Ho lland.

 Pe titio ne r is unre pre se nte d, his tria l a tto rne y

re fuse s to pro vide pe titio ne r with his le g a l file de spite re pe a te d re q ue sts, a nd pe titio ne r la c ks a c c e ss to la w lib ra ry in priso n. So c ha v. Bo ug hto n, 763 F .3d 674 (7th Cir. 2014).

 Me nta l illne ss pre ve nts a pe titio ne r fro m filing

time ly o r fro m a ssisting c o unse l. Riva v. F ic c o , 615 F .3d 35 (1st Cir. 2010).

COURTS HAVE APPLIED EQUITABLE TOLLING WHEN…

 Pe titio ne r re lie s in g o o d fa ith o n b inding c irc uit

pre c e de nt tha t wo uld ha ve ma de his filing time ly. Ne dds v. Calde ro n, 678 F .3d 777 (9th Cir. 2012).

 Pe titio ne r re lie s to his de trime nt o n distric t c o urt

• rde r e xte nding time to file ha b e a s pe titio n.

Prie to v. Quarte rman, 456 F .3d 511 (5th Cir. 2006)

BUT NOT WHEN…

 Pe titio ne r re lie s to his de trime nt o n b inding

c irc uit pre c e de nt, la te r o ve rturne d, b a rring his c la im. 4th Circ uit sa ys no . White side v. Unite d State s, 775 F .3d 180 (4th Cir. 2014) (e n b a nc ).

STEP 7:

I f e q uita b le to lling do e sn’ t a pply, do e s a c tua l inno c e nc e e xc use the sta tute o f limita tio ns?

ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF A CONVICTION CAN EXCUSE AN UNTIMELY CHALLENGE TO THAT CONVICTION.

Ac tua l inno c e nc e (i.e ., fa c tua l inno c e nc e o f c o nvic tio n) c a n e xc use untime ly c ha lle ng e to c o nvic tio n. Se e Mc Quig g in v. Pe rkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013).

CAN ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF A SENTENCE OR OF AN UNDERLYING PREDICATE OFFENSE EXCUSE UNTIMELY FILING OF A SENTENCING CHALLENGE?

Unc le a r. F

• urth Circ uit re c e ntly he ld tha t a c tua l inno c e nc e c a nno t

e xc use untime ly c ha lle ng e to no n-c a pita l se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v. Jo ne s, 758 F .3d 579 (4th Cir. 2013). But q ue stio n is still o pe n in o the r Circ uits. Arg ume nt: sa me a c tua l inno c e nc e e xc e ptio n tha t a pplie s to e xc use pro c e dura l de fa ult in so me se nte nc ing c ha lle ng e s a pplie s in c o nte xt o f sta tute o f limita tio ns.

STEP 8:

Did yo ur c lie nt pro c e dura lly de fa ult his c la im? ?

Note : Proc e dural de fault is an affirmative de fe nse that the gove rnme nt c an waive .

WHAT IS PROCEDURAL DEFAULT?

Pro c e dura l de fa ult o c c urs whe n the pe titio ne r c o uld ha ve ra ise d a c la im a t tria l o r o n dire c t a ppe a l b ut didn’ t. I t re sults in wa ive r o f the c la im a nd b a rs the pe titio ne r fro m a sse rting it in his mo tio n to va c a te . Se e Unite d State s v. F rady, 456 U.S. 152, 168 (1982).

DOES PROCEDURAL DEFAULT APPLY TO EVERY CLAIM NOT RAISED AT TRIAL OR ON APPEAL?

No t ne c e ssa rily. It ma y no t a pply to se nte nc e s a b o ve the sta tuto ry ma ximum—like e rro ne o us ACCA se nte nc e s—whic h a re ille g a l. Se e De Ro o v. Unite d State s, 223 F .3d 919, 926 (8th Cir. 2000); Unite d State s v. Co c ke rham; 237 F .3d 1179, 1182 (10th Cir. 2001); Unite d State s v. Ho llins, 2004 WL 963250 (5th Cir.2004). No te : Go ve rnme nt a ppe a rs to a g re e b e c a use it is no t a rg uing pro c e dura l de fa ult in ACCA c a se s. Also , a rg ue tha t c la ims a rg uing la c k o f jurisdic tio n c a nno t b e pro c e dura lly de fa ulte d.

STEP 9:

I f pro c e dura l de fa ult e xists, is it e xc use d b y c a use a nd pre judic e ?

WHAT IS CAUSE?

Ca use = so me o b je c tive fa c to r e xte rna l to de fe nse tha t impe de d c o unse l’ s e ffo rts to c o mply with pro c e dura l rule .

WHAT IS PREJUDICE?

Pre judic e = e rro r must ha ve wo rke d to pe titio ne r’ s a c tua l a nd sub sta ntia l disa dva nta g e .

DOES CAUSE AND PREJUDICE EXIST BASED ON JOHNSON?

Cause e xists whe n le gal basis for c laim is not r e asonably available to c ounse l at the time of dir e c t appe al.

Cla im is no t re a so na b ly a va ila b le whe n Supre me Co urt de c isio n:

 E

xplic itly o ve rrule s o ne o f the Co urt’ s pre c e de nts

 Jo hnso n e xpre ssly o ve rrule s Jame s (2007)a nd Syke s

(2011).

 I

ssue ma y a rise in Jo hnso n c a se s if de fe nda nt wa s se nte nc e d b e fo re Jame s a nd Syke s.  Ove rturns a lo ng sta nding a nd wide spre a d pra c tic e

to whic h Co urt ha s no t spo ke n, b ut whic h ne a r- una nimo us b o dy o f lo we r c o urt a utho rity ha s e xpre ssly a ppro ve d.

 Do n’ t g ive up o n c a use & pre judic e if se nte nc e pre -

da te s Jame s. Se ve ra l c irc uits e xpre ssly re je c te d va g ue ne ss a tta c ks o n ACCA b e fo re Jame s.

Se e Re e d v. Ro ss, 468 U.S. 1, 16 (1984).

STEP 10:

I s pro c e dura l de fa ult e xc use d b y a c tua l inno c e nc e ?

WHEN IS PROCEDURAL DEFAULT EXCUSED BY ACTUAL INNOCENCE?

Whe n the pe titio ne r is a c tua lly inno c e nt o f the c o nvic tio n he c ha lle ng e s. F

• r e xa mple , whe n the Supre me Co urt re -de fine d the

e le me nts o f the o ffe nse o f c o nvic tio n a fte r pe titio ne r’ s c o nvic tio n b e c a me fina l, pro c e dura l de fa ult is e xc use d whe n, in lig ht o f a ll the e vide nc e a va ila b le , it is mo re like ly tha n no t tha t no re a so na b le juro r wo uld ha ve c o nvic te d him o f the c ha rg e . Se e Bo usle y v. Unite d State s, 523 U.S. 614 (1998).

CAVE AT

: if the pe titio ne r ple a de d g uilty unde r a ple a a g re e me nt, he a lso ha s to sho w tha t he is inno c e nt o f a ny c ha rg e s tha t we re dismisse d a s pa rt o f the a g re e me nt.

WHAT ABOUT ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF A RECIDIVIST SENTENCE?

Po ssib ly.

So me c o urts re q uire fa c tua l innoc e nc e of the unde r

lying pr ior c onvic tions

fo rming the b a sis o f the re c id ivist se nte nc ing e nha nc e me nt (whe the r ACCA, c a re e r o ffe nd e r, o r § 851). Se e Unite d State s v. Duval, 957 F . Supp.2d 100 (D. Ma ss. 2013) (c o lle c ting c a se s). But a rg ue tha t a d e fe nd a nt is a c tua lly inno c e nt o f a re c id ivist se nte nc ing e nha nc e me nt whe ne ve r

he is ine lig ible for the e nha nc e me nt in lig ht o f

inte rve ning pre c e d e nt. Se e Sawye r v. Whitle y, 505 U.S. 333 (1992); Hale y v. Co c kre ll, 306 F .3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002), o ve rrule d o n o the r g ro und s, Dre tke v. Hale y, 541 U.S. 386 (2004); Unite d State s v. Mayb e c k, 23 F .3d 888 (4th Cir. 1994); b ut se e Unite d State s

• v. Pe ttifo rd, 612 F

.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2010).

STEP 11:

I f distric t c o urt de nie s initia l pe titio n, ho w do e s

• ne a ppe a l?

WHEN DO I FILE THE NOTICE OF APPEAL?

No tic e o f a ppe a l must b e file d within 60 da ys o f the fina l judg me nt. Se e Rule s Go ve rning § 2255 Pro c e e ding s, Rule 11 (“F e de ra l Rule o f Appe lla te Pro c e dure 4(a ) g o ve rns the time to a ppe a l a n o rde r e nte re d o n a se c tio n 2255 mo tio n.”)

IS THAT ALL I NEED TO DO?

No . Yo u a lso must g e t a c e rtific a te o f a ppe a la b ility, e ithe r fro m distric t c o urt o r c irc uit c o urt. 28 U.S.C. §2253(c )(1)(B). Re q uire s “sub sta ntia l sho wing o f the de nia l o f a c o nstitutio na l rig ht,” me a ning c o nstitutio na l c la im is de b a ta b le . I f distric t c o urt de nie s pe titio n o n pro c e dura l issue s, the n a lso must sho w tha t is de b a ta b le whe the r distric t c o urt wa s c o rre c t in its pro c e dura l ruling Se e Slac k v. Mc Danie l, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) Jo hnso n c la ims sa tisfy “sub sta ntia l sho wing o f the de nia l o f a c o nstitutio na l rig ht.”

SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE “SOS” 2255 PETITIONS

MY CLIENT ALREADY USED HIS FIRST 2255 PETITION. CAN I FILE A SECOND ONE?

Only if yo u sa tisfy the re q uire me nts fo r filing a se c o nd o r suc c e ssive pe titio n unde r § 2255(h).

F irst, yo u must file a n a pplic a tio n fo r le a ve to file a se c o nd o r suc c e ssive pe titio n

in Circ uit Co urt unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

• Applic a tio n must ma ke prima fa c ie sho wing tha t c la im is b a se d o n ne w rule o f

c o nstitutio na l la w ma de re tro a c tive b y the Supre me Co urt a nd pre vio usly una va ila b le .

Se c ond, if Circ uit Co urt g ra nts the a pplic a tio n, yo u c a n file the se c o nd o r

suc c e ssive 2255 pe titio n in distric t c o urt, b ut yo u still must sho w in distric t c o urt tha t c la im is b a se d o n ne w rule o f c o nstitutio na l la w ma de re tro a c tive b y the Supre me Co urt a nd pre vio usly una va ila b le .

T he re is no a ppe a l o r re he a ring fro m de nia l o f a pplic a tio n to file suc c e ssive pe titio n. I f tha t o c c urs, pro c e e d unde r sa ving s c la use a nd § 2241.

HAS SUPREME COURT MADE JOHNSON RETROACTIVE?

 T

he g o ve rnme nt sa ys ye s, b ut Circ uit Co urts a re divide d a b o ut whe the r SOS o rde rs pe rmitting a se c o nd § 2255 mo tio n fo r Jo hnso n c la ims sho uld b e issue d.



1st Cir. a utho rize d in Po we ll v. US, 15-2202.



2nd Circ uit a utho rize d a suc c e sso r in a n ACCA c a se : I n re Rive ra, No . 13-4654.



4th Circ uit c o nside ring in I n re Hub b ard, No . 15-276



5th Circ uit ha s de nie d, sa ying Jo hnso n isn’ t re tro a c tive a t a ll.



7th Cir. ha s a utho rize d suc c e sso r pe titio ns. E .g ., Sto rk v. US, No . 15-2687; Pric e v. US, No . 15-2427.



8th Cir. ha s a utho rize d a suc c e sso r pe titio n in a n ACCA c a se : Re lifo rd v. US, No . 15-3224.



9th Cir. a utho rize d in Strie t v. US, No . 15-72506



BUT 10th Cir. de nie d suc c e sso r o n g ro und tha t Supre me Co urt did no t ma ke Jo hnso n re tro a c tive . I n re Gie swe in, 2015 WL 5534388 (10th Cir. Se pt. 21, 2015).



11th Cir. de nie d suc c e sso r in I n re Rive ro , No . 15-13089, b ut ha s a ppo inte d c o unse l a nd is re c o nside ring .

BUT WHAT IF MY CLAIM IS BASED ON A STATUTORY INTERPRETATION DECISION? OR A CIRCUIT COURT DECISION?

Yo u wo n’ t b e a b le to o b ta in a utho riza tio n to file a suc c e ssive 2255, a nd yo u’ ll ha ve to se e k re lie f unde r the sa ving s c la use a nd 2241. E xa mple : De sc amps, Be g ay, Burrag e , a nd Ro se mo nd c la ims – Ca n’ t me e t 2255(h)(2) sho wing b e c a use the se c a se s e sta b lishe d sta tuto ry rule s a nd Supre me Co urt itse lf ha s no t ma de the m re tro a c tive .

THE SAVINGS CLAUSE

WHAT IF MY CLIENT ALREADY USED HIS FIRST § 2255 MOTION, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIES MY MOTION TO FILE A SUCCESSIVE PETITION?

 Se e k re lie f unde r the Sa ving s Cla use , 28 U.S.C. §

2255(e )

 Applie s if the re me dy unde r § 2255 “is ina de q ua te o r

ine ffe c tive to te st the le g a lity o f” the priso ne r’ s “de te ntio n.”

 Whe n sa ving s c la use a pplie s, pe titio ne r c a n pro c e e d

unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2241 – the ha b e a s sta tute .

 Unle ss g o ve rnme nt wa ive s o b je c tio n to ve nue , ha s to

b e file d in distric t whe re priso ne r is inc a rc e ra te d.

WHAT DO I HAVE TO SHOW TO GET SAVINGS CLAUSE RELIEF?

I t de pe nds o n yo ur Circ uit. Be c a use the Supre me Co urt ha sn’ t g ive n the c o urts muc h g uida nc e .

FIRST . . . THE GOOD.

 Mo st fa vo ra b le : 7th Circ uit  Me re fa c t tha t pe titio n b a rre d a s suc c e ssive isn’ t e no ug h  Allo we d if o pe ra tio n o f suc c e ssive pe titio n rule s wo uld

pre ve nt pe titio ne r fro m e ve r ha ving a n o ppo rtunity to c ha lle ng e the le g a lity o f his c o nvic tio n o r se nte nc e .

 Ge ne ra l rule (a ltho ug h re c e nt We b ste r v. Danie ls sug g e sts

fle xib ility):

 Priso ne r re lie s o n sta tuto ry inte rpre ta tio n c a se ra the r tha n

c o nstitutio na l c a se .

 Cla im is b a se d o n a re tro a c tive de c isio n tha t priso ne r c o uld no t ha ve

invo ke d in first § 2255 mo tio n.

 E

rro r must b e a funda me nta l de fe c t in c o nvic tio n o r se nte nc e suffic ie nt to b e de e me d a misc a rria g e o f justic e .

Examples of successful savings clause claims in 7th:

 Afte r first § 2255 mo tio n, Supre me Co urt de finitive ly rule d tha t c o nduc t fo r

whic h pe rso n wa s c o nvic te d is no t a n o ffe nse unde r sta tute . (Sta tuto ry inte rpre ta tio n). I n re Dave npo rt, 147 F .3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998).

 Afte r first § 2255 mo tio n, Supre me Co urt issue s ruling tha t Co nstitutio n

c a te g o ric a lly pro hib its a c e rta in pe na lty (e .g ., de a th fo r me nta lly re ta rde d o r juve nile o ffe nde rs), a nd ne w e vide nc e wo uld re ve a l tha t pe na lty wa s pro hib ite d fo r pe titio ne r a t time o f tria l. We b ste r v. Danie ls, No . 14-1049 (Ma y 1, 2015)

 Afte r first § 2255 mo tio n, Supre me Co urt issue d o pinio n o ve rturning b inding

c irc uit pre c e de nt a nd e sta b lishing tha t ACCA e nha nc e me nt wa s e rro ne o us. Bro wn v. Rio s, 696 F .3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012) No te : g o vt c o nc e de d sa ving s c la use a pplie d.

 Afte r first § 2255 mo tio n, Supre me Co urt issue d o pinio n o ve rturning b inding

c irc uit pre c e de nt a nd e sta b lishing tha t ma nda to ry c a re e r o ffe nde r e nha nc e me nt wa s e rro ne o us. Bro wn v. Caraway, 719 F .3d 583 (7th Cir. 2013)

AND THE . . . OKAY.

 8 c irc uits a llo w sa ving s-c la use re lie f fo r a c tua l inno c e nc e

c la ims:



Po inde xte r v. Nash, 333 F .3d 372, 378 (2d Cir. 2003)



I n re Do rsainvil, 119 F .3d 245, 251-52 (3d Cir. 1997)



I n re Jo ne s, 226 F .3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000)



Re ye s-Re q ue na v. Unite d State s, 243 F .3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001)



Unite d State s v. Pe te rman, 249 F .3d 458 (6th Cir. 2001)



Bro wn v. Caraway, 719 F .3d 583 (7th Cir. 2013)



Marre ro v. I ve s, 682 F .3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012)



I n re Smith, 285 F .3d 6 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

NOW FOR SOME . . . NOT THAT GREAT.

 T

hre e c irc uits re je c te d sa ving s-c la use re lie f fo r Guide line c la ims b ut re se rve d judg me nt o n whe the r se nte nc e s a b o ve sta t ma x a re e lig ib le fo r re lie f unde r sa ving s c la use .

 Marre ro v. I

ve s, 682 F .3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012)

 T

re nkle r v. US, 536 F .3d 85 (1st Cir. 2008)

 Unite d State s v. Pe te rman, 249 F

.3d 458 (6th Cir. 2001)

 11th Circ uit sa ys se nte nc e must e xc e e d sta t. ma x fo r sa ving s

c la use to a pply. Bryant v. Warde n, 738 F .3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013).

AND NOW . . . THE BAD.

 Se c o nd a nd F

ifth Circ uits limit sa ving s c la use re lie f to c la ims o f a c tua l inno c e nc e .

 Po inde xte r v. Nash, 333 F

.3d 372, 378 (2d Cir. 2003)

 Re ye s-Re q ue na v. Unite d State s, 243

F .3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001)

FINALLY . . . THE UGLY.

 10th Circ uit: Pro st v. Ande rso n, 636 F

.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011)



No sa ving s c la use re lie f if pe titio ne r’ s a rg ume nt c o uld ha ve b e e n te ste d in a n initia l § 2255 mo tio n, e ve n if la w a t the time pre c lud e d the c la im.



“T he sa ving s c la use d o e sn’ t g ua ra nte e re sults,

• nly pro c e ss.”



E xa mple o f whe n sa ving s c la use is me t: if

• rig ina l se nte nc ing c o urt ha s b e e n a b o lishe d

a nd pe titio ne r ha s no whe re to file a § 2255 mo tio n.



Still o pe n: q ue stio n o f c o nstitutio na l a vo id a nc e – if b a r o n suc c e ssive pe titio ns risks vio la ting the Suspe nsio n Cla use . I n re Do rsainvil, 119 F .3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997); T rie stman v. Unite d State s, 124 F .3d 361 (2d Cir. 1997).

 4th Circ uit re c e ntly e ndo rse d Pro st in

Unite d State s v. Surratt, 797, F .3d 240 (4th

• Cir. 2015), pe t. fo r re h’ g e n b anc

pe nding .

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 Appe a rs to e ndo rse vie w o f c o urts tha t g ra nt

re lie f whe n pe titio ne r is a c tua lly inno c e nt, a nd c irc uit-b usting de c isio n o c c urs a fte r first § 2255 mo tio n is c o nc lude d.

 Ab dullah v. He dric k, 392 F

.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004)

 § 2255 no t ina de q ua te o r ine ffe c tive to te st Baile y

c la im o f a c tua l inno c e nc e o f § 924(c ) b e c a use re g a rdle ss o f his a b ility to de mo nstra te a c tua l inno c e nc e , Ab dulla h ha d a n uno b struc te d pro c e dura l o ppo rtunity to ra ise his c la im: Baile y wa s de c ide d b e fo re he file d his first § 2255.

 Re sult fo r se nte nc ing c la ims is unc e rta in.

THE END