Summary
The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of a § 2241 habeas petition by a federal death row prisoner, holding that the Savings Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) did not apply because § 2255 was not structurally inadequate or ineffective to raise his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel and Brady/Napue claims. The court rejected application of the Martinez/Trevino doctrine to the Savings Clause context, following Purkey v. United States, and found that the alleged newly discovered evidence was known and publicly available, thus not satisfying the Webster v. Daniels standard for accessing § 2241. The judgment was affirmed and a stay of execution denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- 1. Whether the district court erred in denying Lee's § 2241 petition on the ground that it was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) because the Savings Clause did not apply.
- 2. Whether Lee's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and Brady/Napue claim could have been raised in his § 2255 motion such that § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective.
Holdings
- The Savings Clause does not apply because § 2255 was not structurally inadequate or ineffective to raise the ineffective assistance claim. Lee raised a claim of ineffective assistance in his § 2255 motion, and the new argument could have been raised there.
- The Savings Clause does not apply because the alleged newly discovered evidence was known to Lee and was publicly available in the court record of his Oklahoma murder case, so it was not suppressed within the meaning of Brady and was not newly discovered under Webster.
Key quotations
“The Savings Clause, we explained, is a 'narrow pathway to the general habeas corpus statute,' and to proceed down that path there must be something 'structurally inadequate or ineffective about section 2255 as a vehicle' for the arguments raised in the § 2241 petition.” (at 6)
“the words 'inadequate or ineffective,' taken in context, must mean something more than unsuccessful.” (at 6-7)
“There was nothing structurally inadequate or ineffective about section 2255 as a vehicle to make those arguments.” (at 7)
Factual background
In January 1996, Daniel Lewis Lee and his codefendant Chevy Kehoe traveled from Washington to Arkansas and murdered William Mueller, his wife Nancy, and their eight-year-old daughter Sarah. They stole weapons and cash, then shot the victims with a stun gun, placed plastic bags over their heads, and sealed them with duct tape to asphyxiate them. The bodies were discovered six months later. Lee was convicted of capital murder in aid of racketeering and sentenced to death.
Procedural history
Lee was convicted of capital murder in federal court, sentenced to death, and his convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. He pursued collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising multiple grounds including ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an unsuccessful round of § 2255 proceedings, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of Indiana, challenging his death sentence on ineffective assistance and Brady/Napue grounds. The district court denied the petition as barred by the Savings Clause (28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)). Lee appealed, and the Seventh Circuit previously vacated a stay of execution. The district court's denial of the § 2241 petition is the subject of this appeal.