Allen v. Ives, No. 18-35001 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas relief based on lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner claimed actual innocence of his sentence as a career offender.
The panel held that petitioner's appeal was not moot, because petitioner had a nontrivial argument for reducing his supervised release period under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e). The panel also held that petitioner has made a cognizable claim that he is actually innocent of a noncapital sentence for purposes of qualifying for the escape hatch, and that he has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting the claim. The panel clarified that Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), apply retroactively when a court reviews a criminal judgment in the course of addressing a section 2241 petition or a first section 2255 motion. The panel concluded that petitioner may file a petition for habeas corpus under section 2241 and the panel remanded for reconsideration of petitioner's claim on the merits.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Michael Allen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition claiming that he is “actually innocent” of his sentence as a career offender, and remanded for consideration of the claim on the merits. Allen’s sentence was enhanced under the career offender provisions of U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2 (1997) when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory. In his 2017 § 2241 petition, Allen contended that Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), retroactively established that under the categorical approach of Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), his Connecticut state court marijuana conviction was not a “controlled substance offense” as defined in § 4B1.2, and that he was therefore innocent of being a career offender. The district court concluded that Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012), squarely rejected jurisdiction under § 2241 to address career offender errors because such claims are purely legal and have nothing to do with factual innocence. The panel held that the appeal is not moot because there is a nontrivial possibility that the sentencing court will reduce Allen’s term of supervised release if the district court had ALLEN V. IVES 3 jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition and Allen is held to be actually innocent of having been a career offender. The panel held that Allen has made a claim of actual innocence that permits jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition under the 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) “escape hatch,” which permits a federal prisoner to file a § 2241 petition to contest the legality of a sentence where his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. The panel wrote that if Allen prevails on the merits of his claim that his Connecticut marijuana conviction was not a predicate conviction for career offender status, the factual predicate for his mandatory sentencing enhancement did not exist, and he is actually innocent of a noncapital sentence for the purpose of qualifying for the escape hatch. The panel wrote that Allen did not have an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his claim of actual innocence because (1) it was foreclosed by existing precedent at the time of his direct appeal and § 2255 motion, and (2) his claim, which is not based on the Constitution but on the Mathis/Decamps interpretations of federal statutes, would not satisfy the 28 U.S.C. § 2244 criteria for a second or successive § 2255 motion. The panel clarified that Mathis and Decamps apply retroactively when a court reviews a criminal judgment in the course of addressing a § 2241 petition or a first § 2255 motion. 4 ALLEN V. IVES Judge Callahan dissented because this court rejected a similar effort to expand the § 2255(e) escape hatch in Marrero, which is binding on this three-judge panel.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 22, 2020.
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.