Mandacina v. Entzel

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition under section 2241, even though defendant argued that prosecutor violated Brady by failing to turn over evidence that would have shown that government witness had misrepresented results of polygraph examination in defendant's underlying trial on charge that defendant paid third-party to kill potential witness in federal criminal case. Record showed that: (1) defendant had filed and lost direct appeal and filed and lost initial section 2255 habeas petition in 2005; and (2) Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied appeal of denial of section 2255 habeas petition, as well as defendant's request to file successive section 2255 petition that raised instant Brady violation. Denial of section 2241 petition was appropriate, where defendant could not show that instant Brady claim could not have been decided in section 2255 petition, and fact that defendant did not succeed in his initial section 2255 petition did not make section 2255 remedy ineffective. Also, instant 15-year delay between discovering witness' alleged misconduct and first making instant Brady claim under section 2241 petition precluded defendant from obtaining any relief on said claim.