Tony Manns v. J. Young, No. 11-31093 (5th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-31093 Document: 00511964889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-31093 Summary Calendar August 21, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk TONY MANNS, Petitioner-Appellant v. J. P. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11-CV-891 Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Tony Manns, federal prisoner # 04916-032, appeals following the district court s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition wherein he sought to challenge his convictions for robbing two pharmacies, drug trafficking, and using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. Manns argued that he was denied counsel at a critical stage of his prosecution. The district court determined that Manns could not proceed under § 2241 because he was not challenging the execution of * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-31093 Document: 00511964889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012 No. 11-31093 his sentence and because he had not met his burden of proving that his § 2241 petition came within the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Manns s argument that Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), guarantees him the right to bring a denial of counsel claim under § 2241 is without merit. In 1948, Congress enacted § 2255 and made it the main provision governing collateral attacks on convictions for federal prisoners. Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 & n.18 (5th Cir. 2001). Although a federal prisoner may still proceed under § 2241 if he meets the requirements of the savings clause in § 2255, id. at 901, Manns has not even attempted to make such a showing. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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.