Charles Pollock, Jr. v. Warden Steve Kallis, No. 21-1747 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. A petitioner cannot employ Section 2241 to raise a claim under Rehaif v. U.S., 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019) when he could have raised a Rehaif-style claim on direct appeal or in his initial Sec. 2255. [ September 07, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1747 ___________________________ Charles W. Pollock, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. Warden Steve Kallis, FMC Rochester lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: September 2, 2021 Filed: September 8, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Charles Pollock appeals after the district court1 dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which sought relief based on Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019) (holding that for felon-in-possession offense, the government must prove a defendant knew they belonged to category of persons barred from possessing firearms). We are bound by this court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix that a petitioner cannot employ § 2241 to raise a claim under Rehaif when he could have raised a Rehaif-style argument either on direct appeal or in his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, even if circuit precedent “was at that time against him” because he “could have succeeded before the en banc court or before the Supreme Court.” Jones v. Hendrix, -- F.4th --, 2021 WL 3435542, at *2–3 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2021). As such, after careful review, we conclude that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Pollock’s § 2241 petition. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pollock’s motion to strike. See Dall v. United States, 957 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant Pollock’s pending motion to supplement the record and deny his motion for a court order. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Tony L. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
