Marcusse v. FCI Waseca

Background

Janet Mavis Marcusse, appearing without a lawyer, moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a), 59(e), and 60(b) to amend the court’s findings and conclusions, alter or amend the judgment, and vacate the judgment. She also moved to vacate, default, or strike the respondent’s opposition and requested judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. The motions followed the court’s dismissal of Marcusse’s petition challenging her federal conviction or sentence and entry of judgment.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that a federal prisoner generally must bring a collateral challenge to a conviction or sentence through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, rather than through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the court where the prisoner is incarcerated. The court stated that it could hear a § 2241 petition challenging the conviction or sentence only if Marcusse qualified for § 2255’s “savings clause.” Marcusse had the burden to show that the § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective.

The court relied on the earlier magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which found that Marcusse had an ample opportunity to challenge her conviction and sentence under § 2255 and had fully used that opportunity. The court also stated that her current petition raised no argument she could not have raised earlier and identified no adequate intervening legal authority supporting her claims. Because Marcusse did not meet the savings-clause requirement, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear her petition.

Ruling

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Marcusse’s motion to amend the findings and conclusions, alter or amend the judgment, and vacate the judgment was DENIED. The court also ordered that her motion to vacate, default, or strike the respondent’s opposition and for judicial notice was DENIED.