No. 22-512

Mohamad Youssef Hammoud v. Serkou Ma’at, Warden

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-12-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 28-usc-2241 28-usc-2255 actual-innocence circuit-precedent circuit-split collateral-review federal-prisoners habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2023-01-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether federal inmates who did not receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard on a substantial actual-innocence claim can show that the remedy by § 2255 motion was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of their detention and thus proceed to a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, federal prisoners can collaterally challenge their convictions on any ground cognizable on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) limits the types of claims that permit prisoners to make successive attacks so that prisoners can only bring claims that indicate factual innocence or that rely on constitutional-law decisions made retroactive by this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), however, also allows inmates to collaterally challenge their convictions outside this process through a traditional habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 whenever it “appears that the remedy by [§ 2255] motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [their] detention.” The question presented is: Whether federal inmates who did not receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard on a substantial actual-innocence claim—because established circuit precedent stood firmly against them previously and they were not appointed counsel at their first opportunity to present the claim in a § 2255 motion— can show that the remedy by § 2255 motion was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of their detention and thus proceed to a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS DIRECT HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS BELOW 1. Hammoud v. Maat, No. 1:18-cv-00751 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2019) 2. Hammoud v. Maat, No. 19-50914 (5th Cir. Aug. 31, 2022) PRIOR CASE HISTORY 3. USAv. Hammoud, et al, No. 3:00-mj-00160 (W.D.N.C. July 20, 2000) 4. Inre: USAv. Hammoud, et al, No. 3:00-mj-00162 (W.D.N.C. July 20, 2000) 5. Hammoud v. USA, No. 3:14-cv-00076 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 18, 2014) 6. USAv. Hammoud, et al, No. 3:00-cr-00147 (W.D.N.C. July 31, 2020) 7. USAv. Hammoud, No. 2003-cr-04253 (4th Cir. Apr. 27, 2005) 8. USAv. Hammoud, et al, No. 2006-cv-us-01674 (4th Cir. June 15, 2006) 9. USAv. Hammoud, No. 2011-cr-04164 (4th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011) 10. USA v. Hammoud, No. 2011-cr-04346 (4th Cir. Apr. 1, 2011) 11. USA v. Hammoud, No. 0:2016225506095 (4th Cir. Jan. 27, 2016)

Docket Entries

2023-01-09
Petition DENIED.
2022-12-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-12-06
Waiver of right of respondent Serkou Ma’at, Warden, FCI-Bastrop to respond filed.
2022-11-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 3, 2023)

Attorneys

Mohamad Youssef Hammoud
Christopher Donald TomlinsonMoore and Van Allen PLLC, Petitioner
Christopher Donald TomlinsonMoore and Van Allen PLLC, Petitioner
Serkou Ma’at, Warden, FCI-Bastrop
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent