Summary
The Eighth Circuit held that a federal prisoner cannot use a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition to challenge the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of consecutive sentences when he could have raised the same claim in a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. Because the petitioner failed to show that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or forfeited, and the distinction between challenges to the validity versus execution of a sentence does not permit bypassing § 2255 if the remedy sought was available under that statute.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over Lee's § 2241 habeas petition when the claim could have been raised in a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court.
Holdings
- The court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Lee did not demonstrate that the remedy under § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective.
Key quotations
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus [o]n 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.” (at 4)
Factual background
Christopher Lee, on supervised release for bank fraud, was charged with new counts of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. The revocation judge ordered the revocation sentence to run concurrently with the new sentence, but the sentencing judge ordered the new sentence to run consecutively. The Bureau of Prisons calculated the sentences consecutively, resulting in a longer total term. Lee filed a § 2241 petition challenging the execution of his sentences, seeking a declaration that they must run concurrently.
Procedural history
Lee filed a § 2241 petition in the Western District of Missouri, which was converted to a § 2255 motion and transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri. The revocation judge denied the petition, finding the BOP's calculation of consecutive sentences reasonable. Lee appealed.