Carlous Horton v. Stanley Lovett
Unreported, 2023 WL 4402660 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The inability of a federal prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy the two limited conditions for a successive collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) means that the claim cannot be brought at all, and the saving clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) does not provide an alternative path to collateral review via a § 2241 habeas petition.
Facts:
- In 2012, a federal jury in the Western District of Missouri convicted Carlous Horton of multiple drug-trafficking, firearm, and wire-fraud crimes.
- Horton had been convicted of state drug felonies on four prior occasions, including a 1995 Illinois conviction for possessing cocaine with intent to deliver.
- Based on his prior convictions, Horton faced a mandatory life sentence on two of the drug counts under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) for the firearm count.
- The district court imposed two life sentences on the drug counts and a life sentence on the firearm count, all to run concurrently.
- Horton was confined in a federal prison in the Northern District of Illinois when he filed his subsequent petition.
- Horton's habeas petition proposed to challenge his life sentences based on new statutory-interpretation developments from Mathis v. United States (2016) and United States v. Ruth (2020), arguing that certain prior drug convictions were not proper predicates for his enhanced sentence.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal jury in the Western District of Missouri convicted Carlous Horton of multiple crimes.
- The district court imposed two life sentences on drug counts and a life sentence on a firearm count, all concurrently.
- Horton's direct appeal to the Eighth Circuit failed.
- Horton sought collateral relief in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which also failed.
- Horton filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Northern District of Illinois, where he was confined.
- The government conceded that two of Horton's prior convictions were not proper § 841 predicates under Mathis and one other (1995 Illinois conviction) was not a predicate under United States v. Ruth, but opposed relief, arguing Horton did not satisfy Davenport's saving-clause test.
- The district court denied Horton's § 2241 petition, agreeing with the government's position.
- Horton appealed the denial of his § 2241 petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held the appeal pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Jones v. Hendrix.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the saving clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) permit a federal prisoner to bring a statutory claim in a § 2241 habeas petition when the conditions for a successive § 2255 motion under § 2255(h) (newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court) are not met?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Sykes
No, the saving clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) does not permit a federal prisoner to bring a statutory claim in a § 2241 habeas petition when the conditions for a successive § 2255 motion under § 2255(h) are not met. The Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Hendrix (2023) expressly rejected the interpretation of the saving clause previously adopted by the Seventh Circuit in In re Davenport (1998) and similar interpretations in other circuits. The Court in Jones clarified that 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) specifies the exclusive and limited conditions under which Congress permits federal prisoners to bring second or successive collateral attacks: newly discovered evidence of innocence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that a prisoner's inability to satisfy these conditions for a statutory claim means the claim cannot be brought at all, as Congress prioritized finality over error correction in such cases. This ruling abrogates Davenport, thus precluding Horton from using the saving clause to challenge his statutory claim. Therefore, the district court's judgment denying Horton's § 2241 petition is affirmed, based on the controlling precedent of Jones v. Hendrix.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the avenue for federal prisoners to challenge their sentences based on new statutory interpretations that emerge after their direct appeals and initial collateral attacks. By affirming that Jones v. Hendrix abrogates In re Davenport, the Seventh Circuit reinforces the strict finality of federal habeas corpus proceedings, particularly regarding successive motions. The decision confirms that the § 2255(e) saving clause is not a general escape hatch for statutory claims that do not meet the stringent requirements of § 2255(h). Consequently, prisoners will face a much higher bar to revisit their sentences, making it crucial for defense counsel to anticipate potential statutory changes and ensure all possible claims are exhausted in initial proceedings.
