Shields v. Warden

Case: 20-40753 Document: 00516132471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 15, 2021
No. 20-40753
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Sonny Shields,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Warden, FCI Beaumont,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-337
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
In 2011, Sonny Shields pleaded guilty to kidnapping resulting in the
death of a person; he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. In 2019, he
filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the Eastern District of Texas, where he
was incarcerated at the time. He argued that he had been denied certain
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40753 Document: 00516132471 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2021
No. 20-40753
constitutional rights, that his plea was entered under duress because he had
been threatened with the death penalty, and that he should have his sentence
reduced. The district court found that Shields was challenging his conviction
and sentence, but he had failed to show why 28 U.S.C § 2255 was inadequate
to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Because it could not reconstrue his
petition as a § 2255 motion, the district court dismissed it.
This court reviews a dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. Pack v.
Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to the savings clause of
§ 2255(e), a habeas petitioner may attack his conviction and sentence under
§ 2241 if § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” § 2255(e); see Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901
(5th Cir. 2001). To show the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a § 2255
motion, a prisoner must demonstrate that (1) his petition raises a claim that
is based on a retroactively applicable decision of the Supreme Court that
establishes that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense; and (2) his claim
was foreclosed when it should have been presented in his trial, direct appeal,
or original § 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. The petitioner
has the burden of showing that the savings clause applies. Wilson v. Roy, 643
F.3d 433, 435 (5th Cir. 2011).
On appeal, Shields makes an assortment of complaints about his
conviction, sentence, and the conditions of his confinement. However,
Shields does not argue, much less show, that his petition is based on a
retroactively applicable decision of the Supreme Court establishing his actual
innocence or that his claim previously was foreclosed. See § 2255(e); Reyes-
Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. Therefore, he has failed to carry his burden to
demonstrate the inadequacy of the § 2255 remedy.
AFFIRMED.
2