Webster v. Caraway

14 Citing cases

  1. Perkins v. Williams

    17-cv-692-bbc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 25, 2017)

    Light v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 809, 812-13 (7th Cir. 2014); In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 610-12 (7th Cir. 1998). See also Webster v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir. 2014) ("When a change of law, retroactively applicable, shows that the prisoner did not commit a crime or has received an illegally high sentence, § 2241 is available if it otherwise would be impossible to implement the Supreme Court's intervening decision."). As petitioner recognizes, a petition under § 2241 must be brought in the district in which the prisoner is confined rather than the district in which the prisoner was sentenced.

  2. Lippitt v. Oliver

    15-cv-440-wmc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 22, 2017)

    Light v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 809,812-13 (7th Cir. 2014); In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 610-12 (7th Cir. 1998). See also Webster v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir. 2014) ("When a change of law, retroactively applicable, shows that the prisoner did not commit a crime or has received an illegally high sentence, § 2241 is available if it otherwise would be impossible to implement the Supreme Court's intervening decision."). As petitioner recognizes, a petition under § 2241 must be brought in the district in which the prisoner is confined rather than the district in which the prisoner was sentenced.

  3. Bond v. Cross

    Case No. 14-cv-00830-DRH (S.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2014)

    Instead, a petitioner under Section 2241 must demonstrate the inability of a Section 2255 motion to cure the defect in the conviction. Recently, in Webster v. Caraway, ___F.3d___, 2014 WL 3767184, *2-3 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2014), the Seventh Circuit reiterated these principles, stressing that Section 2241 is available "if it otherwise would be impossible to implement the Supreme Court's intervening decision"—keeping the focus on the adequacy and effectiveness of Section 2255. The Seventh Circuit has explained that, following Davenport, in order to fit within the savings clause a petitioner must meet three conditions.

  4. Bond v. Cross

    Case No. 14-cv-00799-DRH (S.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2014)

    Instead, a petitioner under Section 2241 must demonstrate the inability of a Section 2255 motion to cure the defect in the conviction. Recently, in Webster v. Caraway, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 3767184, *2-3 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2014), the Seventh Circuit reiterated these principles, stressing that Section 2241 is available "if it otherwise would be impossible to implement the Supreme Court's intervening decision"—keeping the focus on the adequacy and effectiveness of Section 2255. The Seventh Circuit has explained that, following Davenport, in order to fit within the savings clause a petitioner must meet three conditions.

  5. Webster v. Daniels

    784 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015)   Cited 301 times
    Vacating a prior judgment on rehearing and extending the savings clause to petitioner's § 2241 petition based on the discovery of “new evidence that would demonstrate categorical ineligibility for the death penalty”

    A panel of this court concluded that new evidence can never satisfy the demanding standard of section 2255(e) and thus that Webster cannot be heard. Webster v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 764 (7th Cir.2014) ( Webster IV ). In light of the importance of the question, the full court decided to rehear the case en banc.

  6. Clean Water Action Council of Ne. Wis., Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency

    765 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    See, e.g., Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 817, 824–26, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013); Henderson v. Shinseki, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1202–06, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011); Reed–Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 160–66, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010). See also Webster v. Caraway, No. 14–1049, 761 F.3d 764, 768–70, 2014 WL 3767184, at *3–6 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2014). Venue rules have long been understood as non-jurisdictional.

  7. Webster v. Lockett

    Cause No. 2:12-cv-86-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind. Jun. 18, 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Applying Moore I to an Atkins claim proceeding in a § 2241 action

    The Seventh Circuit affirmed this Court's ruling on August 1, 2014. Webster v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2014). However, en banc review was granted, and the en banc court reversed this Court's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

  8. Webster v. Lockett

    Cause No. 2:12-cv-86-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind. Aug. 31, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    On November 13, 2013, this Court issued an order denying that petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed this Court's ruling on August 1, 2014. Webster v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2014). However, en banc review was granted, and the en banc court reversed this Court's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

  9. Ojeda v. Williams

    17-cv-643-bbc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 25, 2017)

    Light v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 809, 812-13 (7th Cir. 2014); In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 610-12 (7th Cir. 1998). See also Webster v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir. 2014) ("When a change of law, retroactively applicable, shows that the prisoner did not commit a crime or has received an illegally high sentence, § 2241 is available if it otherwise would be impossible to implement the Supreme Court's intervening decision."). As petitioner recognizes, a petition under § 2241 must be brought in the district in which the prisoner is confined rather than the district in which the prisoner was sentenced.

  10. Street v. Williams

    17-cv-364-bbc (W.D. Wis. Aug. 18, 2017)   Cited 4 times
    Dismissing § 2241 petition brought pursuant to Mathis for failure to satisfy second Davenport requirement

    Light v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 809, 812-13 (7th Cir. 2014); In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 610-12 (7th Cir. 1998). See also Webster v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir. 2014) ("When a change of law, retroactively applicable, shows that the prisoner did not commit a crime or has received an illegally high sentence, § 2241 is available if it otherwise would be impossible to implement the Supreme Court's intervening decision."). As petitioner recognizes, a petition under § 2241 must be brought in the district in which the prisoner is confined rather than the district in which the prisoner was sentenced.