Question 1

The majority of the federal appeallate circuits conclude that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to adjudicte a claim of actual innocence, which results from a retroactive change in the circuit's controlling law. Thus, a prisoner may use § 2241 to presert the actual innocence claim. The Eleventh and Tenth Circuit, however, conclude that § 2255 is at least theoretically adequate or effective to remedy a claim foreclosed by circuit precedent, thus in the Eleventh and Tenth a prisoner cannot access § 2241.

Does the Eleventh Circuit too narrowly restrict a district court's § 2241 corpus jurisdiction?

Question 2

Section 2255 prohibits a district court from taking jurisdiction over a § 2241 habeas corpus petition unless a § 2255 motion to vacate is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention.

An actual innocence claim untethered to constitutional or jurisdiction error is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; incognizability is the paradigmic example on inadequate and ineffective. Thus, § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of a detention of based on a claim of factual innocence.

Does the Eleventh Circuit construction of § 2255(e) improperly restrict a district court's habeas corpus jurisdiction over actual-innocence claims that are incognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) and (h)?

Does the Eleventh Circuit too narrowly restrict a district court's § 2241 corpus jurisdiction?