Text Me: A Text-Based Interpretation of 28 U.S.C. 2255(E)

Abstract

A federal prisoner seeking to collaterally attack his convictions and sentences faces a complex journey. He must make it past temporal and procedural hurdles. He must also present his claim in the correct legal clothing - that is, he must decide whether his claim is a collateral attack on his sentence or a challenge to the conditions of his confinement. The former is presented to a federal court through a motion, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; the latter is presented as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. There is one exception to this § 2255–§ 2241 distinction: Rarely, and only rarely, a prisoner can collaterally attack the imposition of his sentence in a § 2241 petition even though such a claim must typically be brought in a § 2255 motion. This article explores that exception. That is, this article examines the critical link that allows a prisoner bring an otherwise unauthorized § 2241 petition to collaterally attack the imposition of his sentence. That link is codified in § 2255, subsection (e). To understand the link between § 2255 and § 2241, it is critical to understand the textual contours and connections of § 2255(e). But, the circuit courts have struggled mightily to interpret that statutory provision. In their struggle, the courts have developed a deep and mature circuit split. Some circuits allow prisoners to avoid statutory restrictions on filing a § 2255 by permitting him to file his claim in a § 2241 petition. Other circuits disallow prisoners from doing the same.This variation among the circuit courts is well-documented. But, the courts’ failure to anchor their varied tests to the text of § 2255(e) is not. This article fills that gap. It examines the text of § 2255 and proposes a text-based reading of subsection (e). By providing a text-based approach to reading § 2255(e), the article hopes to help courts and litigants regain traction by offering a way to remain faithful to the congressionally-enacted words without producing court-created tests that are unmoored from the statute’s text.