IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10155

Summary Calendar

LUIS MADRID,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

JASON JONES, Warden BSCC Cedar Hill Unit,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CV-3

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having pleaded guilty in 2009, Luis Madrid, pro se and in forma 

pauperis, appeals the dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition, which challenges his convictions and sentences (2010) for conspiring 

to commit mail and wire fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 371. Madrid did not appeal. His 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied, and he filed an unsuccessful motion for 

* 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

September 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10155 Document: 00512785191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2014
No. 14-10155

authorization to file a second § 2255 motion. His § 2241 petition was filed in 

2014. 

Madrid asserts, in the light of United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 

(2008), that he was convicted of nonexistent offenses. Citing Garland v. Roy, 

615 F.3d 391, 397–404 (5th Cir. 2010), and Reyes-Requena v. United States, 

243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001), he contends he is entitled to assert his claims 

via the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

Along that line, and as a general rule, a federal prisoner seeking to 

collaterally challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence must file a 

§ 2255 motion. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425–26 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Such claims may be raised in a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of 

§ 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or 

ineffective to test the legality of his detention”. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). When a 

prisoner appeals the dismissal of a § 2241 petition, we review the “district 

court’s findings of fact for clear error and its rulings on issues of law de novo”. 

Padilla, 416 F.3d at 425.

Madrid’s § 2255 remedy was not inadequate for purposes of the savings 

clause simply because he filed an unsuccessful § 2255 motion and was unable 

to meet the requirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. 

Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). To show his § 2255 

remedy was inadequate, Madrid was required to raise a claim of actual 

innocence: “(i) that [wa]s based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court 

decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent 

offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim 

should have been raised in [his] trial, appeal or first § 2255 motion”. ReyesRequena, 243 F.3d at 904. Madrid’s Santos-based claims do not meet that 

2

 Case: 14-10155 Document: 00512785191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2014
No. 14-10155

standard. For example, Santos was decided in 2008, prior to Madrid’s pleading 

guilty in 2009. 

Madrid also asserts, but fails to establish, that the district court abused 

its discretion in denying his request for discovery to support jurisdiction. See

Hernandez v. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990); see also Moore v. 

Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2000) (“We review a district 

court’s discovery decisions for abuse of discretion and will affirm such decisions 

unless they are arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.”). 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-10155 Document: 00512785191 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2014