Opinion ID: 745407
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Old Law: Abuse of the Writ

Text: 16 Under the old § 2255 jurisprudence, a federal prisoner who wished to bring a new claim in a second (or subsequent) § 2255 motion had to convince a district court either that the motion did not constitute abuse of the writ or that he had made a colorable showing of factual innocence. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1470, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991). See also Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314-15, 115 S.Ct. 851, 860-61, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). See § 2255 RULE 9(b) (allowing dismissal of motion found to constitute[ ] an abuse of the procedure). Hanserd satisfies both of these criteria. At its strictest, 9 the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine allows a second motion containing a new claim where the inmate can show cause for failing to raise [the issue in the first motion] and prejudice therefrom. McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 494, 111 S.Ct. at 1470. When Hanserd filed (and appealed) his first motion, it would have been futile for him to argue that his conduct did not support a conviction under § 924(c): we had endorsed a broad definition of use under that statute and had in fact specifically rejected the claim in his direct appeal. United States v. Hanserd, 1993 WL 428907, at  6. See Moore, 76 F.3d at 112. Hanserd has therefore demonstrated cause for his failure to raise the issue in his first motion. Callanan, 881 F.2d at 231. Furthermore, he has made a sufficient showing both of prejudice and of actual innocence: it appears from the record that he pleaded guilty and was convicted for conduct that is, under Bailey, not criminal. We therefore conclude that under the old abuse-of-the-writ standard Hanserd would be entitled raise his Bailey claim in a § 2255 motion. 10