Court Opinion

ID: 9773847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:00:51.818032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:47.555087
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     AUG 29 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HOSEA LATRON SWOPES,                             No.   22-16054

                  Petitioner-Appellant,          D.C. No.
                                                 1:21-cv-01418-JLT-HBK
    v.

A. CIOLLI, Warden,                               MEMORANDUM*

                  Respondent-Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of California
                    Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted August 25, 2023**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: BUMATAY, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

         Federal prisoner Hosea Swopes appeals from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

         Swopes challenged his underlying Missouri sentence under the “escape

         *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
         **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-
hatch” or “saving clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to

file a § 2241 petition if his remedy under § 2255 was “inadequate or ineffective.”

28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th

Cir. 2011). Since the parties briefed this case, however, the Supreme Court issued

a decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857 (2023). Jones held that § 2255(e)

“does not permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in statutory

interpretation to circumvent [the] restrictions on second or successive § 2255

motions by filing a § 2241 petition.” 143 S. Ct. at 1864.

       Swopes concedes that Jones is dispositive and forecloses his claim under

§ 2241.1 Because Swopes had no right to file a § 2241 petition in the first instance,

we need not address his challenges to the enhancement of his sentence in light of

Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction.2

       AFFIRMED.

1
 The parties filed supplemental briefing in light of Jones.
2
 Swopes’s motion to take judicial notice (Dkt. 11) and Appellee’s unopposed
motion to supplement the record (Dkt. 20) are denied as moot.

-                                           2