Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

6 

JONES v. HENDRIX 

Opinion of the Court 

States,  368  U. S.  424,  427  (1962).    Experience  had  shown
that processing federal prisoners’ collateral attacks on their 
sentences  through  habeas  proceedings—and,  therefore, 
through the judicial districts in which they were confined—
resulted  in  “serious  administrative  problems.”  Hayman, 
342  U. S.,  at  212.    Most  significantly,  a  federal  prisoner’s 
district of confinement was often far removed from the rec-
ords of the sentencing court and other sources of needed ev-
idence.  Id., at 212–213.  These difficulties were “greatly ag-
gravated”  by  the  concentration  of  federal  prisoners  in  a
handful  of  judicial  districts,  which  forced  those  District 
Courts to process “an inordinate number of habeas corpus 
actions.”  Id., at 213–214. 

Section 2255 solved these problems by rerouting federal
prisoners’ collateral attacks on their sentences to the courts 
that  had  sentenced  them.    To  make  this  change  of  venue 
effective, Congress generally barred federal prisoners “au-
thorized  to  apply  for  relief  by  motion  pursuant  to”  §2255
from  applying  “for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus”  under  §2241.
§2255(e).  But, in a provision that has come to be known as
the saving clause, Congress preserved the habeas remedy
in cases where “the remedy by motion is inadequate or in-
effective  to  test  the  legality  of  [a  prisoner’s]  detention.” 
Ibid. 

Traditionally,  courts  have  treated  the  saving  clause  as 
covering unusual circumstances in which it is impossible or 
impracticable for a prisoner to seek relief from the sentenc-
ing court.  The clearest such circumstance is the sentencing
court’s dissolution; a motion in a court that no longer exists 
is  obviously  “inadequate  or  ineffective”  for  any  purpose.
See, e.g., Witham v. United States, 355 F. 3d 501, 504–505 
(CA6  2004)  (finding  §2255  inadequate  or  ineffective  after 
court-martial  was  dissolved);  Edwards  v.  United  States, 
1987 WL 7562, *1 (EDNY, Feb. 9, 1987) (finding §2255 in-
adequate  or  ineffective  after  District  Court  of  the  Canal 
Zone was dissolved); cf. Spaulding v. Taylor, 336 F. 2d 192,