Court Opinion

ID: 9909782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 01:00:37.498996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:44.414789
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10658        Document: 00517000311             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10658
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              December 13, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Todd McDonald,                                                                     Clerk

                                                                   Petitioner—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Freddie Garrido, Warden, FMC-Fort Worth,

                                               Respondent—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CV-836
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Todd McDonald, federal prisoner # 14664-010, filed a pro se petition
   for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his petition, he
   challenged his convictions for the online enticement of a minor in violation
   of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and possession of ammunition as a convicted felon in

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10658        Document: 00517000311              Page: 2       Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                          No. 23-10658

   violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 1 The district court dismissed the petition
   for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that McDonald did not meet the
   requirements of the saving clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) so as to authorize
   him to proceed under § 2241.
            McDonald does not brief his challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction
   on appeal, so he has abandoned that claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
   224–25 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted) (explaining that although their
   briefs are afforded liberal construction, pro se litigants must nevertheless
   raise arguments to preserve them). He has only renewed his claim that he is
   innocent of the § 2422(b) charge pertaining to the online enticement of a
   minor.
            A § 2241 petition and a § 2255 motion “are distinct mechanisms for
   seeking post-conviction relief.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir.
   2000). Section 2241 is the proper procedural method for a prisoner to use
   when challenging the conditions of confinement, and a § 2241 petition must
   be filed in the district of incarceration. Id. Section 2255, on the other hand, is
   the primary mechanism for collaterally attacking a federal sentence, and a
   § 2255 motion must be filed with the sentencing court. Id. “A petition filed
   under § 2241 that attacks errors that occurred at trial or sentencing is
   properly construed as a § 2255 motion.” Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d
   424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005).
            However, under “extremely limited circumstances, federal prisoners
   may seek postconviction relief through a § 2241 petition instead of a § 2255
   motion” pursuant to the saving clause of § 2255(e). Hammoud v. Ma’at, 49
            _____________________
            1
            McDonald was convicted and sentenced in the Western District of Arkansas.
   There, he filed two unsuccessful motions to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under
   28 U.S.C. § 2255. McDonald brought this § 2241 petition in the Northern District of
   Texas, where he is currently incarcerated.

                                                2
Case: 23-10658      Document: 00517000311           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                     No. 23-10658

   F.4th 874, 879 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 580 (2023). In particular, § 2255(e)
   “bars a federal prisoner from proceeding under § 2241 ‘unless . . . the
   [§ 2255] remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of
   his detention.’” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 469 (2023) (alteration in
   original) (quoting § 2255(e)).
            In this case, McDonald contends that he meets the requirements of
   § 2255(e)’s saving clause because the Eighth Circuit erred in rejecting his
   previous § 2255 motions. However, the fact that McDonald’s previous
   § 2255 motions were unsuccessful does not make the § 2255 remedy
   inadequate or ineffective under the saving clause. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211
   F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“[A] prior unsuccessful § 2255
   motion . . . does not make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective.”); see also
   Hammoud, 49 F.4th at 880–81. With respect to the Eighth Circuit’s alleged
   errors, this court “do[es] not sit to review decisions” of other circuits or the
   district courts therein relating to the denial of § 2255 motions. Pack, 218 F.3d
   at 454. As the Supreme Court recently explained, “the saving clause is
   concerned with the adequacy or effectiveness of the remedial vehicle . . . , not
   any court’s asserted errors of law.” Jones, 599 U.S. at 480-81 (emphasis
   omitted).
            Because McDonald has failed to demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy
   is inadequate or ineffective under the saving clause, his petition brought
   under § 2241 must be construed as a § 2255 motion. See Pack, 218 F.3d at
   454. And because only the sentencing court—in this case, the Western
   District of Arkansas—has jurisdiction to decide a § 2255 motion, the district
   court for the Northern District of Texas did not err when it dismissed
   McDonald’s petition. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 385 (5th Cir.
   2003).

                                          3
Case: 23-10658   Document: 00517000311      Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                             No. 23-10658

         AFFIRMED.

                                  4