Issaiah Hayes v. Scott Willis, Warden, No. 19-30127 (5th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-30127 Document: 00515145849 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-30127 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 4, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ISSAIAH HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant v. SCOTT WILLIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-1558 Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Issaiah Hayes, federal prisoner # 11330-027, appeals the district court’s dismissal, for want of jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his federal sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and use of a communications facility to distribute narcotics. He also moves for the appointment of counsel on appeal. The district court determined that Hayes’s attack on his sentence—based on Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-30127 Document: 00515145849 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2019 No. 19-30127 (2016), and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013)—should have been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and, further, that Hayes could not proceed under § 2241 pursuant to § 2255(e)’s savings clause. As Hayes’s sentence was imposed by the Northern District of Illinois, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review it under § 2255. We affirm. Because Hayes attacks the legality rather than the conditions of his federal sentence, he must seek relief under § 2255, and he must do so in the court that sentenced him. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court accordingly lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Hayes’s § 2241 petition. See Pack, 218 F.3d at 452. Furthermore, Hayes may not invoke § 2255(e)’s savings clause to proceed under § 2241 because neither Mathis nor Descamps establishes that he was convicted of nonexistent federal offenses. See ReyesRequena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); § 2255(e). The district court did not err either in construing Hayes’s federal petition under § 2255 or in dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003). The judgment is AFFIRMED. Hayes’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.