Jackson v. FCI-Yazoo City Medium

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 13, 2023
• Docket: 22-60372
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-60372 Document: 00516644478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 22-60372 FILED Summary Calendar February 13, 2023 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Michael C. Jackson,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

FCI-Yazoo City Medium Warden,

Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:22-CV-100 ______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Michael Casey Jackson, federal prisoner # 26116-039, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his conviction for unlawful imprisonment. The district court dismissed the petition because Jackson did not satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60372 Document: 00516644478 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2023

No. 22-60372

subsequently denied Jackson’s motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Section 2255’s savings clause permits prisoners to challenge the validity of their convictions under § 2241 if they show that § 2255’s remedy “is inadequate or ineffective.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). The savings clause applies if the petitioner’s claim (1) “is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and (2) “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 Jackson does not meet either criterion. Thus, Jackson also fails to show an abuse of discretion on his Rule 59(e) motion. See Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012). AFFIRMED.