No. 19-52

Alfred J. Walker v. N. C. English, Warden

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-07-08
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: 28-usc-2241 28-usc-2255 circuit-precedent circuit-split erroneous-precedent federal-criminal-procedure federal-prisoner habeas-corpus post-conviction-relief section-2255 statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

May a federal prisoner file a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge an unlawful conviction or sentence foreclosed by binding circuit precedent at the time of direct appeal and § 2255 motion, but meritorious after a subsequent decision overturning that precedent?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Federal criminal defendants are entitled to challenge the validity of their conviction and sentence by means of a direct appeal and a motion for postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Those efforts sometimes fail because erroneous circuit precedent interpreting a federal statute forecloses the defendant’s legitimate claim for relief. This gives rise to an obvious injustice when a later decision by this Court or the circuit overturns the erroneous precedent. In those circumstances, the prisoner cannot again seek relief under Section 2255, which generally bars second or successive applications. As the government has repeatedly recognized, a deep circuit split has arisen over whether such a prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Nine courts of appeals hold that such petitions are authorized by Section 2255(e), which allows a prisoner to pursue such habeas relief if the remedy provided by Section 2255 “appears... inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Two other courts of appeals, including the Tenth Circuit below, hold that the prisoner may not use Section 2241, and thus that he cannot challenge his unlawful detention. The question presented here is: May a federal prisoner file a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in order to raise arguments that were foreclosed by binding (but erroneous) circuit precedent at the time of his direct appeal and original application for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but which are meritorious in light of a subsequent decision overturning that erroneous precedent? ii RELATED CASES United States v. Alfred J. Walker, No. 4:11-cr-00163HFS-1, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Judgment entered June 26, 2012. Subsequent judgment docketed June 10, 2015. United States v. Alfred J. Walker, No. 12-2618, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Judgment entered January 29, 2013. Alfred J. Walker v. United States, No. 4:14-cv-00145HFS, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Judgment entered September 16, 2014. Alfred J. Walker v. United States, No. 16-3158, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Judgment entered February 15, 2017. Alfred J. Walker v. N.C. English, Warden, USPLeavenworth, No. 5:18-cv-03271-JWL, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Judgment entered November 13, 2018. Alfred J. Walker v. N.C. English, Warden, USP Leavenworth, No. 18-3249, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judgment entered May 16, 2019.

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-10-23
Rescheduled.
2019-10-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-10-15
Reply of petitioner Alfred Walker filed.
2019-09-27
Brief of respondent N. C. English, Warden in opposition filed.
2019-09-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 4, 2019.
2019-09-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 6, 2019 to October 4, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-08-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 6, 2019.
2019-07-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 7, 2019 to September 6, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-07-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 7, 2019)

Attorneys

Alfred Walker
Roman Martinez VLatham & Watkins, LLP, Petitioner
Roman Martinez VLatham & Watkins, LLP, Petitioner
N. C. English, Warden
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent