Robinson v. Krueger

5 Citing cases

  1. Dixon v. Watson

    Case No. 17-cv-1339-SLD (C.D. Ill. Jun. 7, 2019)

    The Seventh Circuit has not directly addressed the issue of whether Mathis announced a new rule that applies retroactively, and district courts in the Seventh Circuit are split on the issue. Compare, e.g., Pulliam v. Krueger, No. 16-cv-1379-JES, 2017 WL 104184 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2017) (finding that Mathis was new and retroactive for purposes of meeting the § 2255(e) savings clause); Wadlington v. Werlich, No. 17-CV-449, 2017 WL 3055039, at *3 (S.D. Ill. July 17, 2017) (same); Winters v. Krueger, No. 217CV00386, 2018 WL 2445554, at *2 (S.D. Ind. May 31, 2018) (same); with Neff v. Williams, No. 16-CV-749, 2017 WL 3575255, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 17, 2017) (Mathis "merely reaffirmed its 1990 holding in Taylor"); Robinson v. Krueger, No. 1:17-CV-01187-JBM, 2017 WL 2407253, at *5 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2017) (same). The Court declines to reach this issue here because, assuming arguendo that Mathis is a new retroactive case, Dixon is still not entitled to relief because he has not shown his claim otherwise meets the test to determine if § 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention."

  2. Brazil v. Kallis

    Case No. 17-cv-1420 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The Seventh Circuit has not directly addressed the issue of whether Mathis announced a new rule that applies retroactively, and district courts in the Seventh Circuit are split on the issue. Compare, e.g., Pulliam v. Krueger, No. 16-cv-1379-JES, 2017 WL 104184 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2017) (finding that Mathis was new and retroactive for purposes of meeting the § 2255(e) savings clause); Wadlington v. Werlich, No. 17-CV-449, 2017 WL 3055039, at *3 (S.D. Ill. July 17, 2017) (same); Winters v. Krueger, No. 217CV00386, 2018 WL 2445554, at *2 (S.D. Ind. May 31, 2018) (same); with Neff v. Williams, No. 16-CV-749, 2017 WL 3575255, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 17, 2017) (Mathis "merely reaffirmed its 1990 holding in Taylor"); Robinson v. Krueger, No. 1:17-CV-01187-JBM, 2017 WL 2407253, at *5 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2017) (same). The Court declines to reach this issue here because, assuming arguendo that Mathis is a new retroactive case, Brazil is still not entitled to relief because he has not shown his claim otherwise meets the test to determine if § 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention."

  3. Watkins v. Krueger

    Case No. 18-cv-1183 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Mathis, 136 S.Ct. at 2251. While this Court has held that independent Mathis claims cannot be brought in a § 2241 petition because Mathis is not a new rule, Robinson v. Krueger, No. 17-01187, 2017 WL 2407253, at *5 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2017); Cox v. Kallis, No. 17-1243, 2018 WL 2994378, at *3 (C.D. Ill. June 14, 2018), reconsideration denied, No. 17-1243, 2018 WL 3232771 (C.D. Ill. July 2, 2018), district courts in the Seventh Circuit are admittedly split on the issue, compare Wadlington v. Werlich, No. 17-CV-449, 2017 WL 3055039, at *3 (S.D. Ill. July 17, 2017) (reasoning that Mathis satisfied the first two requirements to bring a § 2241 petition); and Winters v. Krueger, No. 217CV00386, 2018 WL 2445554, at *2 (S.D. Ind. May 31, 2018) (same); with Neff v. Williams, No. 16-CV-749, 2017 WL 3575255, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 17, 2017) (Mathis "merely reaffirmed its 1990 holding in Taylor"). In line with the Supreme Court's language in Mathis and this Court's prior decisions in Robinson and Cox, the Court concludes that Mathis is not a new rule and therefore cannot satisfy the second requirement for filing a § 2241 petition.

  4. Cox v. Kallis

    Case No. 17-cv-1243 (C.D. Ill. Jun. 14, 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Mathis, 136 S.Ct. at 2251. While this Court has held that independent Mathis claims cannot be brought in a § 2241 petition because Mathis is not a new rule, Robinson v. Krueger, No. 1:17-CV-01187, 2017 WL 2407253, at *5 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2017), district courts in the Seventh Circuit are admittedly split on the issue, compare Wadlington v. Werlich, No. 17-CV-449, 2017 WL 3055039, at *3 (S.D. Ill. July 17, 2017) (reasoning that Mathis satisfied the first two requirements to bring a § 2241 petition); and Winters v. Krueger, No. 217CV00386, 2018 WL 2445554, at *2 (S.D. Ind. May 31, 2018) (same); with Neff v. Williams, No. 16-CV-749, 2017 WL 3575255, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 17, 2017) (Mathis "merely reaffirmed its 1990 holding in Taylor").

  5. Jackson v. Williams

    17-cv-319-jdp (W.D. Wis. Aug. 23, 2017)

    " Pulliam v. Krueger, No. 16-cv-1379, 2017 WL 104184, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2017); see also Holt v. United States, 843 F.3d 720, 722 (7th Cir. 2016) ("noting that "substantive decisions such as Mathis presumptively apply retroactively on collateral review"). But see Robinson v. Krueger, No. 17-cv-1187, 2017 WL 2407253, at *5 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2017) ("Mathis is not retroactive."). But Jackson cannot obtain relief under § 2241 because he cannot satisfy the third condition.