Hale v. Fox

• Decision Date: 19 July 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14–1294,14–1294
• Citation: 829 F.3d 1162
• Parties: Matthew Hale, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Jack Fox, Warden, Respondent–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

829 F.3d 1162

Matthew Hale, Petitioner–Appellant

v.Jack Fox, Warden, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 14–1294

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed July 19, 2016

O. Dean Sanderford, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, appearing for Appellant.

Michael C. Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney (John F. Walsh, United States Attorney, with him on the briefs), Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, appearing for Appellee.

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

MATHESON, Circuit Judge.

Matthew Hale was convicted of obstruction of justice and soliciting the murder of a federal judge. After filing an unsuccessful motion for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he filed a habeas corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking relief on two grounds. First, he claimed that, because the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish guilt under the solicitation and obstruction statutes, he was “actually innocent.” Second, he claimed that possible juror misconduct, which he learned about after his § 2255 motion had been denied, may have deprived him of his right to an impartial jury. The district court denied the § 2241 application under § 2255(e) for lack of statutory jurisdiction, and Mr. Hale appeals.¹

Mr. Hale's application is barred under this court's interpretation of § 2255(e) in Prost v. Anderson , 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Legal Background

1. Statutory Framework

A federal prisoner “claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States” may file a motion to “vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). This motion must be filed “in the district court where sentence was imposed.” Sines v. Wilner , 609 F.3d 1070, 1073 (10th Cir. 2010). A prisoner may generally seek § 2255 relief only once, but may file a “second or successive motion” by obtaining certification from a court of appeals that the proposed motion contains:

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

§ 2255(h) ; see § 2244(b).

A § 2255 motion is ordinarily the only means to challenge the validity of a federal conviction following the conclusion of direct appeal. Brace v. United States , 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011). But “in rare instances,” Sines , 609 F.3d at 1073, a prisoner may attack his underlying conviction by bringing a § 2241 habeas corpus application under the “savings clause” in § 2255(e). Brace , 634 F.3d at 1169. That clause provides:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus [ (§ 2241 ) ] in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section [ (§ 2255 ) ], shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion [ (§ 2255 ) ] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Thus, a federal prisoner may file a § 2241 application challenging the validity of his sentence only if § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Abernathy v. Wandes , 713 F.3d 538, 547 (10th Cir. 2013).² The application must be brought “in the district where the prisoner is confined.” Bradshaw v. Story , 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).

2. Legislative History

This framework for post-conviction review is the product of legislation enacted in 1789, 1867, 1948, and 1996.

a. Original Writ of Habeas Corpus

“The Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 81–82, empowered federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners ‘in custody, under or by colour of the authority of the United States.’ ” McCleskey v. Zant , 499 U.S. 467, 477–78, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991). “In 1867, the writ was made available to any federal prisoner ‘restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States.’ ” Triestman v. United States , 124 F.3d 361, 373 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Act of February 5, 1867, ch. 28 § 1, 14 Stat. 385). The original habeas statute survives today in § 2241, which extends habeas corpus to federal prisoners “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” § 2241(c)(3) ; see Brian R. Means, Postconviction Remedies § 5:7 (2015).

b. Enactment of § 2255 and the Savings Clause

As explained above, a prisoner must bring a § 2241 application in the district where he or she is incarcerated. Bradshaw , 86 F.3d at 166. Because federal prisons were clustered in a limited number of states, federal courts in those states were “required to handle an inordinate number of habeas corpus actions far from the scene of the facts, the homes of the witnesses and the records of the sentencing court.” United States v. Hayman , 342 U.S. 205, 214, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952). In 1942, the Judicial Conference of the United States appointed a committee to study these “serious administrative problems” and propose reforms. Id. at 212, 214, 72 S.Ct. 263.

The committee's report, submitted to Congress in 1944, recommended “creat[ing] a statutory remedy consisting of a motion before the court where the movant has been convicted.” Id. at 216, 72 S.Ct. 263 (quotation omitted). The proposed motion would “broadly cover[ ] all situations where the sentence is ‘open to collateral attack.’ As a remedy, it [wa]s intended to be as broad as habeas corpus.” Id. at 217, 72 S.Ct. 263 (quotation omitted). By requiring prisoners to file in the court of conviction, the proposal was designed to distribute the work of collateral review more evenly among the federal courts. See id. at 213–18, 72 S.Ct. 263. Congress responded in 1948 by enacting § 2255, which aimed “to minimize the difficulties encountered in habeas corpus hearings by affording the same rights in another and more convenient forum.” Hayman , 342 U.S. at 219, 72 S.Ct. 263.

The act that established the § 2255 remedy also included what we now know as the savings clause, § 2255(e). As it appeared in the first draft of that bill, it provided:

No circuit or district judge of the United States shall entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus in behalf of any prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to the provisions of this section, unless it appears that it has not been or will not be practicable to have his right to discharge from custody determined on such motion because of the necessity of his presence at the hearing, or for other reasons.

Wofford v. Scott , 177 F.3d 1236, 1239 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted) (emphasis from Wofford omitted). The Senate eventually passed this version of the bill, but it died without a vote in the House. Id. at 1241.

Congress then incorporated a different formulation of the savings clause into a comprehensive overhaul of the judicial code. Id. The new version, which passed in 1948 and resides today in § 2255(e), provides:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

c. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

In April 1996, Congress passed and the president signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Houchin v. Zavaras , 107 F.3d 1465, 1468 (10th Cir. 1997). Prisoners had previously been permitted to raise “new legal or factual claims in a second or subsequent habeas petition ... if the applicant had not on the earlier application deliberately withheld the newly asserted ground or otherwise abused the writ.” Daniels v. United States , 254 F.3d 1180, 1189 (10th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (quotation and brackets omitted). AEDPA altered this scheme, imposing limits on the types of claims a prisoner could assert in a second or successive § 2255 motion. Congress added § 2255(h) as part of AEDPA:

A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain—

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

In enacting AEDPA, Congress revised § 2255 in several other ways—for example, by adding § 2255(f), which imposes a one-year limitations period for bringing § 2255 motions. See United States v. Denny , 694 F.3d 1185, 1187 (10th Cir. 2012).³ But AEDPA left § 2255(e) unchanged, and nothing in the statute's legislative history indicates how, if at all, the addition of § 2255(h) was intended to affect the meaning or scope of the savings clause. See Wofford , 177 F.3d at 1241 n. 2 (explaining that neither the Seventh nor Eleventh Circuit has been able “to find anything useful in AEDPA's legislative history relating to the savings clause”).

...