We have previously held that "[s]ections 2241 and 2255 deal with remedies; neither one is a jurisdictional clause." Harris v. Warden , 425 F.3d 386, 388 (7th Cir. 2005) ; see also Hicks v. Stancil , 642 Fed.Appx. 620, 621 (7th Cir. 2016) ("... failure to satisfy § 2255(e) does not affect the subject-matter jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 petition") (unpublished); Sperberg v. Marberry , 381 Fed.Appx. 602 (7th Cir. 2010) ("[w]hether the proceeding is allowable under § 2255(e) is a question on the merits; it does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction")(unpublished); Collins v. Holinka , 510 F.3d 666, 667 (7th Cir. 2007) ("[i]f ... § 2255 offered him one full and fair opportunity to contest his conviction ..., then the § 2241 action must be dismissed under § 2255 [e]"); Moore v. Olson , 368 F.3d 757, 759 (7th Cir. 2004) ("[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction, however, is supplied by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as any claim under § 2241 entails a federal question"). But see Williams v. Warden, Federal Bureau of Prisons , 713 F.3d 1332, 1340 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing cases indicating that the savings clause of § 2255(e) is jurisdictional).
The Eleventh Circuit treated us as reaching a contrary conclusion in Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638 (7th Cir.2012), but discounted that decision on the ground that the court had “simply accepted the government's concession” (id. at 1340 n. 1)—which would be an improper way to address a jurisdictional issue. See also Sperberg v. Marberry, 381 Fed.Appx. 602 (7th Cir.2010) (nonprecedential) ( “[w]hether the proceeding is allowable under § 2255(e) is a question on the merits; it does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction.”). In light of Williams we have taken a fresh look at the issue and once more conclude that § 2255(e) does not curtail subject-matter jurisdiction.
Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 16). The Court granted Petitioner's Motion after finding that the Seventh Circuit's opinions in Narvaez v. U.S., 641 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2011), and Sperberg v. Marberry, 381 F. App'x 602 (7th Cir. 2010), raised questions about the grounds upon which Petitioner's Petition was originally denied. At the Seventh Circuit, Petitioner and Respondent filed a Joint Motion for Remand. (11-3011, Doc. 16).