Janice Taylor v. A. Adduci

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Janice Sue Taylor. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-15368

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15368
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:15-cv-01301-JHH-JHE

JANICE SUE TAYLOR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
A. WASHINGTON ADDUCI,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(May 22, 2017)

Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-15368

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Janice Taylor, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. The district
court determined that she did not meet the requirements of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)
saving clause, and that she previously filed a § 2255 motion in 2012. On appeal,
Taylor argues that she can bring a habeas challenge under § 2241 because she
challenges the illegality of her detention. As to the merits, Taylor argues the trial
court: (1) abused its discretion in denying a continuance shortly after she retained
replacement counsel, forcing her to represent herself; (2) violated her Sixth
Amendment right to cross-examine a witness when it denied her request to
subpoena the author of an IRS assessment; (3) violated her rights under the Double
Jeopardy Clause at sentencing by imposing additional punishment for a lesser
included offense; and (4) abused its discretion by imposing restitution that was not
authorized by statute.
Typically, collateral attacks on the validity of a federal conviction or
sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d
1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003). “[C]hallenges to the execution of a sentence, rather
than the validity of the sentence itself, are properly brought under § 2241.”
Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). The
saving clause of § 2255 permits a federal prisoner to file a habeas petition pursuant
to § 2241 if the petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under § 2255 is
2

Case: 16-15368

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

Page: 3 of 3

inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of her detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e);
see also McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1081
(11th Cir. 2017) (en banc).
“To determine whether a prisoner satisfies the saving clause, we ask only
whether the motion to vacate is an adequate procedure to test the prisoner’s claim.”
McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1086. We determine “whether the prisoner would have
been permitted to bring that claim in a motion to vacate.” Id. at 1086-87. “In other
words, a prisoner has a meaningful opportunity to test his claim whenever section
2255 can provide him a remedy.” Id. at 1087.
In this case, the district court did not err in concluding that Taylor failed to
satisfy the saving clause, and thus that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the merits
of Taylor’s claims under § 2241. Taylor had an opportunity to bring all four issues
listed above in her earlier § 2255 motion, and thus her “remedy by motion was not
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [her] detention.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e). Thus, we affirm the dismissal of Taylor’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus.
AFFIRMED.

3