Ricks v. Warden ( 2023 )

Case: 21-50077 Document: 00516664535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-50077
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ March 3, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Todd Ricks, Clerk
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Warden FNU LNU, FCI Bastrop,
Respondent—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-1041
______________________________
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Todd Ricks, federal prisoner # 83035-180, appeals from the dismissal
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
challenging the legality of his sentences for possession of a firearm and
ammunition by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm in furtherance of
drug trafficking, and maintaining a house used for manufacturing
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-50077 Document: 00516664535 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023
No. 21-50077
methamphetamine. The district court determined that Ricks could not
challenge his sentence under § 2241 because he failed to satisfy the “savings
clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
A § 2255 motion is the primary vehicle for collaterally attacking a
federal sentence. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). However,
a prisoner may challenge the basis of his federal custody in a § 2241 petition
if he shows that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of his detention. § 2255(e); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243
F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). To make that showing, a prisoner must present
a claim “(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court
decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent
offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim
should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255
motion.” Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.
The district court correctly concluded that Ricks had failed to identify
a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that he may
have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. Ricks essentially repeats those
arguments on appeal. He accordingly fails to show that the district court
erred by dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Jeffers v.
Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
2