United States District Court, D. Minnesota
N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Katherine
Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 5, 2017.
(Dkt. No. 7.) The R&R recommends, among other things,
dismissing this action without prejudice because Petitioner
Matthew Antoine Canady's petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 is barred by the exclusive-remedy rule within 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e), which requires petitioners to challenge their
conviction or sentence under § 2255 unless the §
2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective.”
(See Id. at 4.) The R&R reasons that this rule
applies to Canady because nothing prevented him from making
his § 2241 arguments in previous challenges to his
sentence. (See id.) Canady objects to this
conclusion and argues that his current arguments are based on
United States v. Resinos, 631 F.3d 886, 888 (8th
Cir. 2011), which issued after Canady's direct appeal and
first § 2255 motion. (See Dkt. No. 12 at 1, 3.)
Because of this, he contends that relief under § 2255
“is inadequate to test the legalities of his conviction
and sentence.” (Id. at 3.) In response, the
Government asks the Court to adopt the R&R in its
entirety. (See Dkt. No. 13.)
reviewing the R&R, Canady's objection, and the
record, the Court agrees with the R&R's recommended
disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
petitioner bears the burden of showing that the § 2255
remedy is inadequate or effective. Lopez-Lopez v.
Sanders, 590 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2010). The §
2255 remedy is not inadequate or effective if the petitioner
previously had “an unobstructed procedural opportunity
to present his claim.” Abdullah v. Hedrick,
392 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2004). In addition, the §
2255 remedy is not inadequate or ineffective “merely
because § 2255 relief has already been denied, or
because [the] petitioner has been denied permission to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion, or because a second
or successive § 2255 motion has been dismissed.”
United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th
Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, if the
petitioner could have or actually raised an issue in an
earlier § 2255 motion, then the petitioner cannot raise
the issue again in a § 2241 petition, even if the
petitioner is procedurally barred from again seeking relief
under § 2255. See Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 963;
Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1092 (8th Cir.
R&R points out, Canady's § 2241 arguments appear
to have been the subject of his direct appeal to the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals. See United States v.
Canady, 350 F. App'x 88, 88-89 (8th Cir. 2009)
(affirming the sentence). He filed his first § 2255
motion in 2010, see Motion Under 28 U.S.C. §
2255, Canady v. United States, No. 4:10-CV-616
(JAJ), (S.D. Iowa Dec. 30, 2010), Dkt. No. 1, and his second
§ 2255 motion in 2012, see Motion to Vacate,
Canady v. United States, No. 4:12-CV-59 (JAJ) (S.D.
Iowa Feb. 7, 2012), Dkt. No. 1. Neither motion appears to
have raised Canady's exact § 2241 arguments.
accepting, without deciding, that the decision in
Resinos set forth a new interpretation of law in the
Eighth Circuit applicable to Canady's case,
Resinos relied on several other Circuit cases dating
as far back as 1993, if not also the Supreme Court's
decision in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640
(1946). See 631 F.3d at 888 & n.1. Canady could
have presented arguments based on those cases in his first
§ 2255 motion. Canady also could have raised his §
2241 arguments in his second § 2255 motion, which he
filed in 2012, after Resinos was published, or in a
request for authorization to file a second § 2255
motion. That his second motion was denied on procedural
grounds for failure to obtain authorization, see Canady
v. United States, No. 4:12-CV-59 (JAJ) (S.D. Iowa Feb.
8, 2017), does not render the § 2255 remedy inadequate
or ineffective, see Hill, 349 F.3d at 1092. For
these reasons, Canady has not shown that the § 2255
remedy is ineffective or inadequate in the circumstances of
this case. See Id. (concluding the same under
similar circumstances); see also Cotrell v. Warden,
631 F. App'x 723, 726 (11th Cir. 2015) (unpublished)
(affirming dismissal of a petition involving related claims
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Defendant Matthew Antoine Canady's Objection to the
Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 12] is OVERRULED.
Defendant Matthew Antoine Canady's petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Dkt. No. 1] is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Defendant Matthew Antoine Canady's motion for appointment
of counsel [Dkt. No. 3] is DENIED.
Defendant Matthew Antoine Canady's application to proceed
in forma ...