McDonald v. Garrido ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10658 Document: 00517000311 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10658
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ December 13, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Todd McDonald, Clerk
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Freddie Garrido, Warden, FMC-Fort Worth,
Respondent—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CV-836
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Todd McDonald, federal prisoner # 14664-010, filed a pro se petition
for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his petition, he
challenged his convictions for the online enticement of a minor in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and possession of ammunition as a convicted felon in
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10658 Document: 00517000311 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2023
No. 23-10658
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 1 The district court dismissed the petition
for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that McDonald did not meet the
requirements of the saving clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) so as to authorize
him to proceed under § 2241.
McDonald does not brief his challenge to his § 922(g)(1) conviction
on appeal, so he has abandoned that claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224–25 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted) (explaining that although their
briefs are afforded liberal construction, pro se litigants must nevertheless
raise arguments to preserve them). He has only renewed his claim that he is
innocent of the § 2422(b) charge pertaining to the online enticement of a
minor.
A § 2241 petition and a § 2255 motion “are distinct mechanisms for
seeking post-conviction relief.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir.
2000). Section 2241 is the proper procedural method for a prisoner to use
when challenging the conditions of confinement, and a § 2241 petition must
be filed in the district of incarceration. Id. Section 2255, on the other hand, is
the primary mechanism for collaterally attacking a federal sentence, and a
§ 2255 motion must be filed with the sentencing court. Id. “A petition filed
under § 2241 that attacks errors that occurred at trial or sentencing is
properly construed as a § 2255 motion.” Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d
424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005).
However, under “extremely limited circumstances, federal prisoners
may seek postconviction relief through a § 2241 petition instead of a § 2255
motion” pursuant to the saving clause of § 2255(e). Hammoud v. Ma’at, 49
_____________________
1
McDonald was convicted and sentenced in the Western District of Arkansas.
There, he filed two unsuccessful motions to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under
28 U.S.C. § 2255. McDonald brought this § 2241 petition in the Northern District of
Texas, where he is currently incarcerated.
2
Case: 23-10658 Document: 00517000311 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/13/2023
No. 23-10658
F.4th 874, 879 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 580 (2023). In particular, § 2255(e)
“bars a federal prisoner from proceeding under § 2241 ‘unless . . . the
[§ 2255] remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of
his detention.’” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 469 (2023) (alteration in
original) (quoting § 2255(e)).
In this case, McDonald contends that he meets the requirements of
§ 2255(e)’s saving clause because the Eighth Circuit erred in rejecting his
previous § 2255 motions. However, the fact that McDonald’s previous
§ 2255 motions were unsuccessful does not make the § 2255 remedy
inadequate or ineffective under the saving clause. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211
F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“[A] prior unsuccessful § 2255
motion . . . does not make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective.”); see also
Hammoud, 49 F.4th at 880–81. With respect to the Eighth Circuit’s alleged
errors, this court “do[es] not sit to review decisions” of other circuits or the
district courts therein relating to the denial of § 2255 motions. Pack, 218 F.3d
at 454. As the Supreme Court recently explained, “the saving clause is
concerned with the adequacy or effectiveness of the remedial vehicle . . . , not
any court’s asserted errors of law.” Jones, 599 U.S. at 480-81 (emphasis
omitted).
Because McDonald has failed to demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy
is inadequate or ineffective under the saving clause, his petition brought
under § 2241 must be construed as a § 2255 motion. See Pack, 218 F.3d at
454. And because only the sentencing court—in this case, the Western
District of Arkansas—has jurisdiction to decide a § 2255 motion, the district
court for the Northern District of Texas did not err when it dismissed
McDonald’s petition. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 385 (5th Cir.
2003).
3
Case: 23-10658 Document: 00517000311 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/13/2023
No. 23-10658
AFFIRMED.
4