POLLOCK v. KALLIS FMC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-09-08No. No. 21-1747

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, concluding the district court lacked jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition because the petitioner could have raised the Rehaif argument in his direct appeal or initial § 2255 motion.

Charles Pollock appealed the dismissal of his habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he sought relief based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States. That decision established that in felon-in-possession cases, the government must prove a defendant knew they belonged to a category of persons prohibited from possessing firearms. The Eighth Circuit had previously decided in Jones v. Hendrix that petitioners cannot use § 2241 to raise Rehaif-based claims when those arguments could have been presented on direct appeal or in an initial § 2255 motion, even if controlling circuit precedent was unfavorable at that time because the petitioner could have appealed to the en banc court or the Supreme Court.

Applying the Jones v. Hendrix precedent, the court concluded the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Pollock's § 2241 petition. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Pollock's motion to strike. The court granted Pollock's motion to supplement the record but denied his request for a court order.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Jurisdiction of § 2241 habeas petitions for Rehaif claims
Timing and proper forum for raising Rehaif arguments in post-conviction relief
Relation between direct appeal, § 2255 motions, and § 2241 petitions

Procedural posture

The appellant challenged the district court's dismissal of his § 2241 habeas petition seeking relief under Rehaif v. United States.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Charles Pollock appeals after the district court

dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which sought relief based on Rehaif v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (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 courts 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, 8 F.4th 683, at *2–3 (8th Cir. 2021). As such, after careful review, we conclude that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Pollocks § 2241 petition. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pollocks 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 Pollocks pending motion to supplement the record and deny his motion for a court order.

FOOTNOTES

. 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.

PER CURIAM.