Dustin Higgs v. T. Watson

Summary

Federal prisoner Dustin Higgs sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm convictions based on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis (2019), which held the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the petition, holding that Davis is a constitutional decision, not a statutory-interpretation case, so the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) does not permit resort to § 2241. Because § 2255 provides an adequate and effective remedy for Davis-based claims—including the ability to seek authorization for a second or successive motion under § 2255(h)(2)—the court concluded that the denial of such authorization by the Fourth Circuit does not establish a structural inadequacy in § 2255. The case reinforces that a petitioner cannot use § 2241 to circumvent § 2255's limitations unless there is a structural problem with the § 2255 remedy itself.

Holdings

1. The savings clause does not permit Higgs to pursue relief under § 2241 because Davis is a constitutional case, not a statutory interpretation case, and thus § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) allows Higgs to challenge his § 924(c) convictions under United States v. Davis via a § 2241 petition.

Disposition

affirmed