United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
OPINION AND ORDER
T. Pittman, United States District Judge.
the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Jose Alfredo
Sandoval-Sifuentes, a federal prisoner confined at FMC-Fort
Worth, against Eric. D. Wilson, warden of FMC-Fort Worth,
Respondent. After having considered the pleadings and relief
sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the
petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
is serving a 240-month term of imprisonment for his 2007
conviction in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas for conspiracy to smuggle aliens
with a death resulting. Resp't's App. 1-2, ECF No.
12-1. Petitioner has filed three § 2255 motions to
vacate, set aside, or correct sentence in the convicting
court, to no avail.Mots., United States v. Sandoval-Sifuentes,
PACER, Criminal Docket for Case #: 3:06-cr-01421-DB-1, ECF
Nos. 48, 111, 116. In the instant § 2241 petition,
Petitioner's claims are vague and undeveloped. They are
construed as follows: (1) he is actually innocent and did not
admit to the crime of bringing in and harboring aliens; (2)
the seriousness of the offense was not a factor under 18
U.S.C. 3553(a)(2); and (3) his guilty plea was not voluntary
as required by due process. Pet. 5-6, ECF No. 6.
§ 2241 is used to challenge the manner in which a
sentence is executed. See Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d
688, 694 (5th Cir. 2000). Section 2255 is the primary means
under which a federal prisoner may collaterally attack the
legality of his federal conviction or sentence. See Cox
v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir.
1990). A § 2241 petition attacking a federal conviction
and sentence may be considered only if the petitioner
establishes that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See
Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000).
The burden of demonstrating the inadequacy of the § 2255
remedy rests with the petitioner. See Jeffers v.
Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). In order to
meet this burden, a petitioner must show that (1) his claim
is based on a retroactively applicable United States Supreme
Court decision, (2) his claim was foreclosed by circuit law
at the time when the claim should have been raised in his
trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion, and (3) that
retroactively applicable decision establishes that he may
have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Garland
v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010);
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904
(5th Cir. 2001).
fails to satisfy these requirements in all respects. Even if
Petitioner could establish his actual innocence, he presents
no authority, and none is found, for an actual-innocence
gateway to challenge a conviction in a § 2241 petition
where, as here, he fails to satisfy the requirements of
§ 2255's savings clause. See Perez v.
Stephens, 593 Fed. App'x 402, 403, 2015 WL 576845
(5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2015). A § 2241 petition is not an
alternative to the relief afforded by motion in the
convicting court under § 2255. See Pack v.
Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673 (10th
Cir.1963)). Petitioner cannot rely on § 2241 because his
prior § 2255 motions were unsuccessful or to avoid
procedural hurdles presented under § 2255, such as the
one-year statute of limitations or the restriction on filing
second or successive motions to vacate. See Jeffers,
253 F.3d at 830 (providing prior unsuccessful § 2255
motion or the inability to meet the statute's second or
successive requirement does not make § 2255 inadequate
or ineffective); Pack, 218 F.3d at 453 (providing
prior, unsuccessful § 2255 motion, the limitations bar,
and successiveness do not render the § 2255 remedy
inadequate or ineffective); Tolliver, 211 F.3d at
877 (providing petitioner cannot circumvent the restriction
on filing successive § 2255 motions with § 2241
has not met all three criteria required to invoke the savings
clause of § 2255 as to the claims presented in this
habeas-corpus petition. The Court is therefore without
jurisdiction to consider the petition. See
Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 385 (5th Cir. 2003).
reasons discussed herein, Petitioner's petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability is
Two of the motions were designated by
Petitioner as habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
and subsequently construed and recharacterized as ...