FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MARCH 1, 2011
J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 0- 10 46 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 5 :0 9- cv -0 03 13 -TJC -GRJ

PAUL SANTIVANEZ
,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l b Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

vers us

W ARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP II,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 1, 2 01 1)

Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Pau l San ti va ne z, a pr o se fed eral pr is on er, ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa lof hi s 28 U.S.C. § 22 41 pe ti ti on fo r ha be as rel ie f, in whi ch he m ad e m ul ti pl e cl ai m s

th at th e tri al ha d no juri sd ic ti on to co nv ic t an d se nt en ce hi m

. The di st ric t co ur t

di sm is se d hi s pe ti ti on be cau se San ti va ne z co ul d no t sh ow th at th e sa vi ng s cl au se in

28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (e) ap pl ie d so t h a t he co ul d fil e un de r § 22 41

. On ap pe al
,

S a n t i v a n e z arg ue s th at : (1 ) be cau se juri sd ic ti on was al le ge dl y la ck in g in th e co ur t

whe re he was co nv ic te d, he is “ act ua ll y in no cen t” an d can th eref or e rai se hi s cl ai m s

un de r § 22 41
, de sp it e ha vi ng pr ev io us ly fil ed a 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n, an d (2 ) hi s

ch al le ng e cen te rs on th e “ m ean s” of hi s co nv ic ti on be cau se , if he is act ua ll y in no cen t,

th en hi s im

pr is on m en t vi ol at es th e Co ns ti tu ti on an d la ws of th e Uni te d St at es

. Afte r

care fu l re vi ew, we affi rm

.

The av ai la bi li ty of ha be as rel ie f un de r § 22 41 pr es en ts qu es ti on s of la w th at we

rev ie w de no vo

. Doh rm an n v. Uni te d St at es , 44 2 F.3 d 12 79
, 12 80 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ).

In rev ie win g a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a § 22 41 ha be as pe ti t i o n , w e rev ie w th e

di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d qu es ti on s of la w de no vo

. Co lo m a

v. Ho ld er, 4 45 F.3d 12 82 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

In ge ne ral
, a § 22 55 mo t i o n w il l be a fed eral pr is on er’s “ pr im ary m et ho d of

co ll at eral at ta ck ” on hi s co nv ic ti on a n d se nt en ce aft er th at co nv ic ti on ha s be co m e

2fin al

. McGh ee v. Han be rry , 60 4 F.2 d 9, 10 (5 th Ci r. 19 79 ). A § 22 41 pe ti ti on “ is no t 1

a su bs ti tu te fo r a m ot io n un de r § 22 55

. . . .” Id

. Onl y on rare oc cas io ns wil l a fed eral

pr is on er be ab le to at ta ck hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce th ro ug h § 22 41 as op po se d to

§ 2 25 5. Th is is so be cau se th e “ sa vi ng s cl au se ” o f § 2 25 5 p ro vi de s t ha t:

An ap pl ic at io n fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us in b e h a l f o f a pr is on er who is au th or iz ed to ap pl y fo r rel ie f by m ot io n pu rs ua nt to th is se ct io n, sh al l

no t be en te rta in ed if it ap pe ars th at th e ap pl ic an t ha s fai le d to ap pl y fo r rel ie f, by m ot io n, to th e co ur t whi ch se nt en ced hi m , or th at su c h co ur t ha s d en ie d hi m rel ie f, un le ss it als o a pp ears th at th e rem ed y by m ot io n is in ad eq ua te or i ne ffec ti ve to tes t t he leg al it y of h is de te nt io n.

28 U.S .C. § 22 55 (e) (em ph as es ad de d)

. Thu s, a § 22 41 pe ti ti on at ta ck in g cu st od y

res ul ti ng fro m a fed eral ly im po se d se nt en ce m ay on ly be en te rta in ed if th e pe ti ti on er

es ta bl is he s th at th e rem ed y pr ov id ed by § 22 55 is in ad eq ua te or in effe ct iv e. W of fo rd

v. Scot t, 17 7 F.3 d 12 36
, 12 45 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ). Howev er, th e rem ed y un de r § 22 55

wil l o nl y be fou nd to be in ad eq ua te of i ne ffec ti ve if:

1 ) [ t he ] cl ai m is ba se d up on a ret ro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le Su pr em e Co u r t de ci si on ; 2) th e ho ld in g of th at Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on es ta bl is he s th e pe ti ti on er was co nv ic te d fo r a no ne xi st en t of fen se ; an d
, 3 ) c i r cu it la w sq ua rel y fo recl os ed su ch a cl ai m at th e ti m e it ot he rwis e sh ou ld h a v e be en rai se d i n t he pe ti ti on er’s t ria l, ap pe al , or fi rs t § 22 55 m ot io n.

Id

. at 12 44

. Acco rd in gl y , a p e t i ti on er m ay no t av oi d th e sa vi ng s cl au se m erel y

I n Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s prec edent a ll rulings of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to Oc tober 1, 1981.

3be cau se he “ ha s f i l e d an d be en de ni ed a pr ev io us § 22 55 m ot io n

. . . .” Darb y v.

Hawk- Sawy er, 40 5 F.3 d 94 2, 94 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). Mo reo ve r, whe n a pr is on er fil es

a § 22 41 pe ti ti on , th e pr is on er be a r s b u r d e n of co m in g fo rward wit h ev id en ce

affi rm at iv el y sh owi ng th e in ad eq ua cy of in effe ct iv en es s of th e § 22 55 rem ed y

.

McGh ee, 604 F.2 d at 10

. Fi na ll y , a pe ti ti on er m ay no t ar gu e act ua l in no cen ce un ti l

he ha s “ op en [ed ] th e po rta l” to a § 22 41 pr oc eed in g by de m on st rat in g th at th e sa vi ng s

cl au se ap pl ie s t o h is cla im . W of fo rd , 17 7 F .3d at 1 24 4 n .3.

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y d et erm in ed th at San ti va ne z fai le d to

de m on st rat e th at th e s a v i n g s c la us e in § 22 55 (e) ap pl ie d su ch th at he co ul d rai se

cl ai m s at ta ck in g hi s co nv ic ti on pu rs ua nt to § 22 41

. San ti va ne z ha d pr ev io us ly fil ed

a § 22 55 m ot io n, an d he fai le d to de m on st rat e th at t h e r e med y p ro vi de d by § 22 55

was in ad eq ua te or in effe ct iv e. To th e ex te nt th at San ti va ne z at te m pt s to arg ue act ua l

in no cen ce, he can no t do so be cau se he d i d n o t “ op en th e po rta l” by de m on st rat in g

th at § 22 55 (e)’s sa vi ng s cl au se ap pl ie d. W of fo rd
, 17 7 F.3 d at 12 44 n.3

. Acco rd in gl y ,

we affi rm

.

AFFIRMED.

4