Malone v. FCI Sandstone

Background

Dennell Malone, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his federal conviction and sentence. He had previously challenged the conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the opinion states that his first § 2255 motion was granted in part but did not reduce his overall sentence. The Eighth Circuit later denied his requests to file additional § 2255 motions, including a request related to Johnson v. United States.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Malone’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Malone objected. He argued that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective because the Eighth Circuit had denied his requests to file another § 2255 motion. He also argued, alternatively, that the court should delay its ruling until the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a federal prisoner generally must challenge a conviction or sentence through a motion under § 2255 filed in the sentencing court, rather than through a § 2241 petition filed in the court of incarceration. A prisoner may use § 2241 only after showing that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective under the statute’s exception, sometimes called the savings clause. The prisoner bears that burden.

The court held that § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because relief was previously denied or because procedural restrictions make another § 2255 motion difficult. Because Malone had already challenged the same conviction and sentence, another § 2255 motion required authorization from the Eighth Circuit. The court found that Malone had not received that authorization.

The court also determined that Malone’s argument concerning the language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was a constitutional claim based on a new rule of constitutional law. It therefore concluded that Malone could potentially pursue the claim under § 2255 if he obtained Eighth Circuit authorization and made the required preliminary showing. Because that potential route remained available, the court concluded that § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective.

Disposition

The court overruled Malone’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety, denied Malone’s § 2241 petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The ruling was based on the court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition through § 2241; it did not decide whether Malone’s conviction or sentence was legally valid.