United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG
the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) filed by pro se
Petitioner David Williams (“Williams”)
(#70659-054). Williams is an inmate in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), incarcerated
at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana.
Williams challenges the legality of his conviction.
Williams has not demonstrated that he is entitled to proceed
under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, his
Petition (Doc. 1) should be DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction (Doc. 1).
was convicted of planning and attempting to carry out
domestic terrorism offenses, including a plot to launch
missiles at a military base and bomb two synagogues. See
United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2013).
Williams's conviction and sentence were affirmed on
filed a habeas petition under § 2255, which was denied.
Williams v. United States, 09-CR-558, 2017 WL
4174927 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2017). Williams's appeal from
the denial of his § 2255 motion is pending in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (No. 18-3182,
§ 2241 Petition, Williams alleges that he is actually
innocent of some of the charges against him. (Doc. 1).
Law and Analysis
§ 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of
a federal sentence by attacking errors that occurred at trial
or sentencing must either be dismissed or construed as a
§ 2255 motion. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d
448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). However, if a petitioner
establishes that the remedy provided under § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his or her
detention, a § 2241 petition that attacks custody
resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be
entertained under the “savings clause” of §
2255. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426
(5th Cir. 2005).
savings clause 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.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). “[T]he burden of coming
forward with evidence to show the inadequacy or
ineffectiveness of a motion under § 2255 rests squarely
on the petitioner.” Jeffers v. Chandler, 253
F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).
order to meet the requirements of the savings clause, a
petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) his claim is based on a
retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision; (2) the
Supreme Court decision establishes that he was
“actually innocent” of the charges against him
because the decision decriminalized the conduct for which he
was convicted; and (3) his claim would have been foreclosed
by existing circuit precedent had he raised it at trial, on
direct appeal, or in his prior § 2255 petition. See ...