Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60100/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Ray Carr
Appellant
Marcus Martin
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60100

Summary Calendar

JACK RAY CARR,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN MARCUS MARTIN,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:14-CV-939

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jack Ray Carr, federal prisoner # 05898-095, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition challenging his convictions of various tax violations on jurisdictional 

grounds. The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition as frivolous because 

Carr failed to satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court 

further construed the petition as a motion to vacate the judgment under § 2255 

and dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Carr argues that his 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60100 Document: 00513350897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2016
No. 15-60100

2

jurisdictional challenges to his convictions are properly brought in a § 2241 

petition. He also argues that the denial of the § 2241 petition resulted in a de 

facto suspension of his right to habeas relief, in violation of his constitutional 

rights.

Carr’s § 2241 petition challenged the validity of his underlying

conviction and, as such, he was required to satisfy the savings clause of § 2255 

in order to bring his claims in a § 2241 petition. See Wesson v. United States 

Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 2002); Reyes-Requena 

v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir. 2001). Carr failed to do so. See 

Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 901. Accordingly, the district court did not err in 

dismissing Carr’s § 2241 petition as frivolous. See Pack v. Yuseff, 218 F.3d 448, 

452 (5th Cir. 2000). Because the district court was not the sentencing court in 

this case, there was no error in the dismissal of Carr’s § 2255 motion for lack 

of jurisdiction. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000).

Carr’s contention that the dismissal of his § 2241 petition impermissibly 

suspended the writ of habeas corpus lacks merit. We have held that the 

restrictions on obtaining relief pursuant to § 2241 and the savings clause of 

§ 2255 do not violate the Suspension Clause. See Wesson, 305 F.3d at 347; 

Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 901 n. 19.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60100 Document: 00513350897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2016