Opinion ID: 73818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hayman Opinion

Text: The history of and purpose behind § 2255, and its relationship to the habeas remedy, which is codified in § 2241, is discussed in United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952). Section 2255 was enacted in 1948 to minimize the difficulties encountered in habeas corpus hearings by affording the same rights in another and more convenient forum. 342 U.S. at 219, 72 S.Ct. at 272. The practical difficulties with the habeas remedy were serious administrative problems resulting from the requirement that those proceedings be brought and decided in the district of incarceration. Id. at 210-19, 72 S.Ct. at 268-72. Before the enactment of § 2255, the habeas proceeding for a petitioner imprisoned in a district other than the one where the case had been tried was conducted far from where the relevant records and witnesses were. That was not an unusual occurrence. The Hayman Court pointed to the example of a habeas case in which the prisoner alleged he had been coerced into pleading guilty by the United States Attorney and two other federal officers. The hearing had to be held in the Northern District of California where the prisoner was incarcerated, even though the three federal officers involved were located in Texas where the events occurred and the conviction had been obtained. See id. at 213, 72 S.Ct. at 269. Moreover, because habeas proceedings had to be brought and decided in the district of incarceration, the cases were bunched in the few districts where the larger federal prisons were located at that time. As the Supreme Court put it, the few District Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction major federal penal institutions are located were required to handle an inordinate number of habeas corpus actions far from the scene of the facts, the homes of the witnesses and the records of the sentencing court.... Id. at 213-14, 72 S.Ct. at 269. The enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 addressed the administrative problems arising from the habeas remedy by substituting for it in federal prisoner collateral attack cases a remedy in the sentencing court. That solution both spread out among the districts the burden of handling such cases and also ensured that in most instances the proceeding would be conducted in the district where the necessary witnesses and records were located. See id. at 210-19, 72 S.Ct. at 268-72. The purpose of § 2255 was to clarify and simplify the procedure and provide an expeditious remedy in the sentencing court without resort to habeas corpus. See id. at 218, 72 S.Ct. at 272. There was no intent to make the § 2255 remedy any different in scope from the habeas remedy that had previously been available to them: On the contrary, the sole purpose was to minimize the difficulties encountered in habeas corpus hearings by affording the same rights in another and more convenient forum. Id. at 219, 72 S.Ct. at 272. What then of the savings clause language inserted into § 2255? About that, the Hayman opinion is not very helpful. It simply observes without elaboration that [i]n a case where the Section 2255 procedure is shown to be 'inadequate or ineffective,' the Section provides that the habeas corpus remedy shall remain open to afford the necessary hearing. Id. at 223, 72 S.Ct. at 274 (footnote omitted). We turn to the legislative history for further guidance on the meaning of the savings clause.