IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

WILLIE LAMPLEY, § 

BOP Register No. 27717-078, § 

 § 

Petitioner, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1857-C-BN 

 § 

C. RIVERS, § 

 § 

Respondent. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Petitioner Willie Lampley, a federal prisoner incarcerated in this district, was 

convicted of receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography in the 

Eastern District of Texas and sentenced to 210 months and 120 months to run 

concurrently. See United States v. Lampley, 1:18-CR-00020-MAC-KFG(1) (E.D. Tex. 

Dec. 20, 2018), aff’d, 781 F. App’x 282 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). 

Lampley appears to be currently challenging these sentences under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. See Lampley v. United States, No. 1:19-cv-00622-MAC-CLS (E.D. Tex.). 

Despite the pending Section 2255 motion, Lampley filed in this district a pro 

se application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his 

underlying criminal convictions and urging that Section 2255 is neither an adequate 

nor an effective remedy. See Dkt. No. 3. 

Senior United States District Judge Sam R. Cummings referred Lampley’s 

Section 2241 petition to the undersigned United States magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. 

Case 3:22-cv-01857-C-BN Document 4 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 35
- 2 - 

Generally, if a prisoner has challenged his conviction with a failed 

§ 2255 motion, he doesn’t get a second bite at the apple under § 2241. 

See Santillana v. Upton, 846 F.3d 779, 781-83 (5th Cir. 2017). In fact, a 

prisoner generally can’t use § 2241 to challenge his conviction. 

But there’s an exception: Under § 2255(e)’s “savings clause,” id., 

a prisoner can use § 2241 to challenge his conviction if § 2255 “is 

inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” And § 2255 

is “inadequate or ineffective” if “(1) the § 2241 petition raises a claim 

that is based on a retroactively applicable [United States] Supreme 

Court decision; (2) the claim was previously foreclosed by circuit law ... 

and (3) that retroactively applicable decision establishes that the 

petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.” 

Santillana, 846 F.3d at 782 (cleaned up). “The petitioner bears the 

burden” of “com[ing] forward with evidence showing each element of 

[that] test.” Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010) (cleaned 

up). 

Abram v. McConnell, 3 F.4th 783, 785 (5th Cir. 2021). 

Lampley has not carried his burden to show each element of this circuit’s 

standard to invoke the savings clause. For example, he fails to identify a retroactively 

applicable Supreme Court decision. 

And, just because the court that convicted him has yet to rule on Lampley’s 

Section 2255 motion does not render Section 2255 “inadequate or ineffective to test 

the legality of his detention.” See, e.g., Richards v. Warden, No. 1:20-CV-623-P, 2020 

WL 4250105, at *3 (W.D. La. June 17, 2020) (“Richards cannot show that § 2255 is 

inadequate to challenge his sentence, as his § 2255 motion remains pending in the 

court of conviction. Moreover, Richards does not allege or demonstrate that he meets 

the requirements of the savings clause.” (citation omitted)), rec. adopted, 2020 WL 

4249435 (W.D. La. July 23, 2020). 

Absent the savings clause, the Court is without jurisdiction to consider the 

Section 2241 petition attacking Lampley’s underlying convictions and sentences. See, 

Case 3:22-cv-01857-C-BN Document 4 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 36
- 3 - 

e.g., Carter v. Blackmon, 732 F. App’x 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (“Although 

the district court did not address its jurisdiction under the savings clause, we are 

required to examine it. Carter has failed to show that he was actually innocent of the 

crime of conviction, and he is not entitled to use the savings clause of § 2255 to 

challenge his sentence by petitioning under § 2241. Because Carter failed to meet the 

savings-clause standard and was convicted and sentenced in the Eastern District of 

Missouri, the district court for the Southern District of Mississippi lacked jurisdiction 

to consider his Johnson and Mathis claims.” (citations omitted)). 

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections 

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation 

where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure 

to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or 

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. 

Case 3:22-cv-01857-C-BN Document 4 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 37
- 4 - 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

DATED: August 25, 2022 

 _________________________________________ 

 DAVID L. HORAN 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01857-C-BN Document 4 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 38