Ricks v. Warden, No. 21-50077 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-50077 Document: 00516664535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 21-50077 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED March 3, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Todd Ricks, Petitioner—Appellant, versus Warden FNU LNU, FCI Bastrop, Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:19-CV-1041 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Todd Ricks, federal prisoner # 83035-180, appeals from the dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the legality of his sentences for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and maintaining a house used for manufacturing _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 21-50077 Document: 00516664535 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 No. 21-50077 methamphetamine. The district court determined that Ricks could not challenge his sentence under § 2241 because he failed to satisfy the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). A § 2255 motion is the primary vehicle for collaterally attacking a federal sentence. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). However, a prisoner may challenge the basis of his federal custody in a § 2241 petition if he shows that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. § 2255(e); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). To make that showing, a prisoner must present a claim “(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that 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 Ricks had failed to identify a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. Ricks essentially repeats those arguments on appeal. He accordingly fails to show that the district court erred by dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). 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.
