Jones v. Pliler

Background

Tarone M. Jones, who was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of his federal conviction and sentence. After a jury trial, he had been convicted of possessing a firearm as a person previously convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). He received a 240-month prison sentence followed by five years of supervised release.

Jones had previously challenged the conviction and sentence through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied that motion on the merits, and the Eighth Circuit dismissed his appeal. The Eighth Circuit also denied multiple requests for permission to file another § 2255 motion.

In this case, Jones argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague. He contended that his three prior offenses therefore no longer supported the enhanced sentence.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that § 2255 is generally the proper method for a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. Section 2241 ordinarily addresses the execution of a sentence, such as parole decisions or conditions of confinement. Because Jones sought to vacate his conviction, his claim fell within § 2255 rather than § 2241.

The court considered the “savings clause” in § 2255(e), which can allow a prisoner to use § 2241 when § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention. Under the standards applied by the court, Jones had to show both that § 2255 was unavailable and that he could prove actual innocence on the existing record.

The court concluded that Jones could not show that § 2255 was unavailable merely because the Eighth Circuit had denied permission for a successive motion. The court noted that Jones had already presented his Johnson claims in multiple requests for permission to file a successive § 2255 motion. It also concluded that Jones had not alleged actual innocence. His argument concerned the legal classification of his prior offenses for sentencing purposes, not factual innocence of those offenses.

Disposition

Because Jones’s first § 2255 motion had been decided on the merits, the court recharacterized his § 2241 petition as a second or successive § 2255 motion. A prisoner must obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals before filing such a motion in a federal district court. Jones had not indicated that he had received that authorization.

The court therefore transferred the motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, allowing Jones to request permission there. The order closed the action and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied fee-free appeal status.