United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge
the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C.
§ 2241) filed by pro se Petitioner Albert Hall
(“Hall”) (#96599-004). Hall is an inmate in the
custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, incarcerated at the
United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. Hall
challenges the legality of his sentence imposed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Hall cannot meet the requirements of the savings clause of 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e), his petition should be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
a guilty plea, Hall was convicted of possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon and sentenced to 180 months of
imprisonment. (Docket No. 1:11-CR-20217, S.D. Fla., Doc. 42).
Hall did not appeal his sentence.
filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 raising
ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Docket No.
1:12-CV-22634). The motion was denied. (Docket No.
1:12-CV-22634, Doc. 14). Hall's motion for certificate of
appealability was also denied. (Docket No. 13-14593, 11th
filed a second motion to vacate, which was dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. (Docket No. 1:14-CV-22452, S.D. Fla., Doc.
21). Hall's appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Docket No. 16-15016, 11th Cir.).
2016, Hall sought authorization from the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive
motion to vacate. The appellate court denied authorization.
(Docket No. 16-16787, 11th Cir.).
2017, Hall again sought authorization from the Eleventh
Circuit to file a successive § 2255 petition. Hall
argued that his prior Florida drug conviction no longer
qualified as a predicate offense for the enhancement to his
sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (Docket No.
17-12253, 11th Cir.). Hall's argument relied on
Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). The
appellate court clarified that Hall's reliance on
Mathis was misplaced, as Mathis did not
announce a new rule of constitutional law. (Docket No.
17-12253, 11th Cir.).
Law and Analysis
Hall does not meet the requirements of the savings
seeks to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255(e),
which provides a limited exception to the rule that a §
2241 petition may not be used to challenge the validity of a
federal sentence and conviction. See Pack v. Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). The savings clause allows
a prisoner to rely on § 2241 if the remedy available
under § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e). The burden of affirmatively proving that the
§ 2255 remedy is inadequate rests with the petitioner.
See McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir.
Fifth Circuit has identified the limited circumstances under
which the savings clause of § 2255 applies. A petitioner
must demonstrate that: (1) his claims are based on a
retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision, which
establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent
offense; and (2) his claims were foreclosed by circuit law at
the time when the claims should have been ...