Wadena v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I
ORDER dismissing the case without prejudice; directions to the Clerk. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 1/6/2021. (KLC)
Case 5:20-cv-00611-BJD-PRL Document 4 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MICHAEL WAYNE WADENA,
Case No: 5:20-cv-611-Oc-39PRL
WARDEN, FCC COLEMEN –
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner, an inmate of the federal correctional system proceeding pro
se, initiated this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1; Petition). Petitioner challenges the legality of his 2017
sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. See Petition at 2. Petitioner concedes he has already filed a motion
to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. at 3-4. The sentencing court
denied his motion, and the appellate court dismissed his appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. Id. at 4, 31.
Petitioner seeks to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under § 2255’s saving
clause, asserting a remedy under § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to
challenge his sentence because, according to Petitioner, the appellate court in
fact had jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Id. at 4, 5.
Case 5:20-cv-00611-BJD-PRL Document 4 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 57
A motion to vacate under § 2255 is the “exclusive mechanism for a federal
prisoner to seek collateral relief unless he can satisfy the ‘saving clause.’”
McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1079, 1081
(11th Cir. 2017) (“Congress gives a federal prisoner one opportunity to move to
vacate his sentence.”). The saving clause is triggered only when a prisoner’s
remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” See § 2255(e). The Eleventh Circuit now makes clear that only in
three narrow circumstances is a remedy under § 2255 “inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality” of a petitioner’s detention:
(1) when raising claims challenging the execution of
the sentence, such as the deprivation of good-time
credits or parole determinations; (2) when the
sentencing court is unavailable, such as when the
sentencing court itself has been dissolved; or (3) when
practical considerations, such as multiple sentencing
courts, might prevent a petitioner from filing a motion
Bernard v. FCC Coleman Warden, 686 F. App’x 730, 730-31 (11th Cir. 2017)
(citing McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1092-93). If a petitioner could have brought or
did bring his claims in a § 2255 motion, the remedy is adequate and effective
even if he ultimately was unsuccessful. “‘Remedy’ as used in the saving clause
does not promise ‘relief.’” McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1086.
Petitioner is not entitled to proceed under § 2241 because the limited
circumstances under which § 2255’s saving clause applies are not present:
Case 5:20-cv-00611-BJD-PRL Document 4 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 58
Petitioner does not challenge the execution of his sentence, and the single
sentencing court remains available. See Bernard, 686 F. App’x at 730-31. In
fact, Petitioner already tested the legality of his sentence by filing a § 2255
motion in the sentencing court. See Petition at 3-4 (citing District of Minnesota
case number 0:16-cr-513JRT). That Petitioner believes the appellate court
incorrectly dismissed his appeal does not mean a remedy under § 2255 was
inadequate or ineffective.1 See McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1086.
Accordingly, it is
This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this case
without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 6th day of
Michael Wayne Wadena
Notably, Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate
court, which that court denied. See Petition at 5.
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?