Henry Ivy, Jr. v. Linda Sanders, No. 07-2663 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - habeas. Ivy could not bring his claim of actual innocence in a Section 2241 petition when he had already filed an unsuccessful Section 2255 on the claim.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2663 ___________ Henry L. Ivy, Jr., Appellant, v. Linda Sanders, Warden, FCI - Forrest City, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: September 23, 2008 Filed: September 26, 2008 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Henry Ivy appeals the district court s1 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he contended that he was actually innocent of one of his jury convictions. He previously brought this claim, however, in a proceeding under 28 1 The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court,2 and the court rejected the claim on the merits. In these circumstances, we agree with the district court that Ivy could not bring his claim under section 2241. See Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ivy s motion for reconsideration. See Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan, 462 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (same; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
