Higgs v. Watson

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing defendant’s habeas petition under section 2241 that challenged his firearm convictions under section 924(c), under circumstances where defendant had previously filed unsuccessful motion seeking leave to file successive section 2255 habeas petition that challenged his firearms convictions under Johnson, 576 U.S. 591. Dist. Ct. stayed instant section 2241 petition pending U.S. Supreme Ct, decision in Davis, 139 U.S. 2319, and defendant subsequently filed another unsuccessful request to file a successive section 2255 petition that contended that he was entitled to relief under Davis because Davis found that residual clause defining “crime of violence” in section 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague. However, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant could not proceed under section 2241 because defendant could not show that there was anything structurally inadequate about section 2255 proceeding as remedy for individuals like defendant to challenge his section 924(c) convictions under Davis. Fact that defendant did not prevail on his request to file Davis-based, successive section 2255 petition did not demonstrate that section 2255 petition was inadequate vehicle to address his claims under Davis.