Freddie Wilson v. Warden, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Freddie Wilson. 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.

Download PDF
Case: 17-14099 Date Filed: 04/10/2018 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14099 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00488-KOB-SGC FREDDIE WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondents - Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (April 10, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-14099 Date Filed: 04/10/2018 Page: 2 of 2 Freddie Wilson, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for lack of jurisdiction. Wilson argues that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective and that his sentence is unlawful. We affirm. A federal prisoner may collaterally attack his sentence by filing a motion to vacate it, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). But the saving clause of section 2255(e) permits a federal prisoner to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus only when “the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). We review de novo whether a federal prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under the saving clause of section 2255(e). McCarthan v. Dir. Of Goodwill Induc.-Suncoast, 851 F.3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The district court did not err in dismissing Wilson’s petition, which alleged grounds for relief that he could have raised—and, in fact, did raise—in a motion to vacate his sentence under section 2255(a). That remedy was neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of his sentence. And the bar of second or successive motions, 28 U.S.C. § 2225(h), does not make a motion to vacate inadequate or ineffective under the saving clause of section 2255(e). McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1092. AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?