Gregg v. Paul

Background

James Allen Gregg filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his conviction. The Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended dismissing the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation stated that a federal prisoner may use section 2241 to attack a conviction only when the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. It concluded that Gregg had not made that showing.

Gregg received an extension to object to the recommendation and filed objections. He argued that the savings clause—the provision allowing a section 2241 petition when section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective—applied to his case. He relied on United States v. Wheeler for the argument that a new, retroactive rule of statutory interpretation could support use of the savings clause. Gregg also cited United States v. Davis, which applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya to conclude that section 924(c)’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. He asked the court to hold his petition until the Supreme Court decided Davis.

Analysis

The court conducted a fresh review of the record and overruled Gregg’s objections. It agreed that it did not need to decide whether a new statutory rule could support use of the savings clause because Gregg was not relying on a new statutory rule. The court characterized Davis as involving a constitutional holding, not a statutory holding. It therefore agreed that Gregg’s claim was fundamentally constitutional and that section 2255(h)(2) may permit authorization of that claim. Because Gregg had not established that section 2255 was inadequate or ineffective, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the section 2241 petition.

Disposition

Judge Joan N. Ericksen adopted Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court dismissed Gregg’s section 2241 petition without prejudice and ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion did not decide the underlying validity of Gregg’s conviction; it resolved the petition on the jurisdictional question.