Cortez v. Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ADAM JOSHUA CORTEZ, §
#43540-177, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:25-cv-03298-S (BT)
§
WARDEN, FCI SEAGOVILLE, §
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Adam Joshua Cortez, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on December 1, 2025. See generally Pet.
(ECF No. 3). For the following reasons, the Court should dismiss the petition for
lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On September 20, 2011, Cortez was charged by indictment with enticement
of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 2426 (count one), and with
committing a felony offense involving a minor while required to register as a sex
offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A (count two). See United States v. Cortez,
3:11-cr-280, Indictment (ECF No. 1) (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2011). Cortez was
thereafter convicted by a jury and sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment for
count one and 120 months’ imprisonment for count two, to run consecutively—and
a life term of supervised release with special conditions of supervision. Id., Jury
Case 3:25-cv-03298-S-BT Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID <pageID>

2
Verdict (ECF No. 52); id., Judgment at 2–4 (ECF No. 64). This judgment was later
affirmed on appeal. United States v. Cortez, 543 Fed. App’x. 411, 412 (5th Cir.
2013).
Cortez challenged his conviction and sentence in 2014 under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. He raised three main claims: (i) trial counsel was ineffective, (ii) appellate
counsel was ineffective, and (iii) his sentence constituted cruel and unusual
punishment. Cortez v. United States, 2016 WL 6956765, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 31,
2016), rec. adopted, 2016 WL 6962530 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2016). On November
28, 2016, the court denied Cortez’s habeas petition with prejudice. Id. at *7. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit thereafter denied Cortez a
certificate of appealability. United States v. Cortez, 2018 WL 11434734, at *1 (5th
Cir. Jan. 23, 2018).
On July 31, 2025, Cortez filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit seeking
authorization to file a successive § 2255 petition based on the purported discovery
of new evidence. In re Adam Joshua Cortez, 25-10884, Mot. at 2 (Doc. 2) (5th Cir.
July 31, 2025). The Fifth Circuit denied this request. Id., Order (Doc. 22-2).
So, Cortez filed the present habeas application with the Court on December
1, 2025. See generally Pet. He admits that he is now seeking relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 because the Court already denied his previous § 2255 petition with prejudice
and the Fifth Circuit similarly denied his request for successive review. Id. at 4. The
present habeas application again raises claims concerning Cortez’s underlying
conviction, the use of certain evidence at trial, and his indictment. See id. at 4–5.
Case 3:25-cv-03298-S-BT Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID <pageID>

3
Legal Standards
A reviewing court must first determine whether the petitioner properly
raised a claim in a § 2241 petition. If the Court finds “it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the
petitioner.” Cabello v. United States, 2024 WL 2064082, at *3 (W.D. Tex. May 8,
2024) (citing Rules 1 and 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases), aff’d, 2024 WL
4614718 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2024) (per curiam).
A. 28 U.S.C. § 2241
“A section 2241 petition for habeas corpus on behalf of a sentenced prisoner
attacks the manner in which his sentence is carried out or the prison authorities’
determination of its duration.” Pack v. Yusoff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000)
(citations omitted). To prevail, a § 2241 petitioner must show that he is “in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c). A § 2241 petitioner may make this attack only in the district court with
jurisdiction over his custodian. United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.
1992).
B. 28 U.S.C. § 2255
“By contrast, a motion attacking a federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 ‘provides the primary means for collateral attack on a federal sentence.’”
Cabello, 2024 WL 2064082, at *3 (quoting Pack, 218 F.3d at 451) (further citations
Case 3:25-cv-03298-S-BT Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID <pageID>

4
omitted). Relief under § 2255 is warranted for errors that occurred at trial or
sentencing. Cox v. Warden, 911 F.2d 1111, 1114 (5th Cir. 1990). A § 2255 movant
may only bring his motion in the district of conviction and sentence. Pack, 218 F.3d
at 451.
C. Savings Clause
Accordingly, a federal prisoner who wants to challenge his conviction or
sentence must generally seek relief under § 2255. Cabello, 2024 WL 2064082, at
*3 (citing Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005)). A federal
prisoner may raise claims challenging his conviction or sentence in a § 2241
petition only if they fall within the “savings clause” of § 2255(e):
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who
is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section,
shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to
apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that
such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the
remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
In Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), the Supreme Court noted that §
2255(h) strictly limited second or successive § 2255 motions to those that contain:
(1) Newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of
the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would
have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
Case 3:25-cv-03298-S-BT Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID <pageID>

5
(2) A new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.
Jones, 599 U.S. at 476 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)). The Court explained that, as
to those challenges that fall outside of § 2255(h)—including challenges under §
2255(e)—“[t]he inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy those
conditions does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under
the savings clause. It means that he cannot bring it all.” Id. at 480.
“When a § 2241 petitioner cannot satisfy the savings clause requirements,
the proper disposition is dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction.” Cabello,
2024 WL 2064082, at *4 (citing Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 379, 385 (5th
Cir. 2003)).
Analysis
Cortez attacks his conviction and sentence, seeking either immediate release
or a new trial “without tainted evidence.” Pet. at 5.
As noted, a § 2255 motion, and not a § 2241 petition, “provides the primary
means of collateral attack on a federal sentence.” Pack, 218 F.3d at 451.
“Nonetheless, the savings clause in § 2255(e) allows a district court with
jurisdiction over a prisoner’s custodian to entertain a § 2241 petition challenging a
federal sentence if it first concludes that a § 2255 motion is inadequate to challenge
a prisoner’s detention.” Cabello, 2024 WL 2064082, at *4 (citing 28 U.S.C. §
2255(e)). “But a § 2255 motion is deemed adequate unless the § 2241 petitioner
relies on (1) newly discovered evidence or (2) a new rule of constitutional law.” Id.,
Case 3:25-cv-03298-S-BT Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID <pageID>

6
at *4 (citing Jones, 599 U.S. at 469). “Relief under § 2255 is not ‘inadequate or
ineffective’ for purposes of the savings clause merely because the prisoner has filed
a prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion or is unable to meet the requirements for filing
a second or successive § 2255 motion.” Matthews v. United States, 378 Fed. App’x
451, 452–53 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th
Cir.2000)).
Cortez does not present any new evidence; nor does he rely on a new rule of
constitutional law. He presents routine claims regarding the admissibility of
evidence. His inability to meet either of § 2255(h)’s second or successive
requirements means that he cannot bring his claims under § 2241, and the Court
should dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Jones, 599 U.S. at 479; see also
Cabello, 2024 WL 2064082, at *4.
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss petitioner Adam Joshua Cortez’s amended
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction.
SO RECOMMENDED.
December 4, 2025.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03298-S-BT Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID <pageID>

7
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in
the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination
is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the
briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written
objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district
court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services
Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:25-cv-03298-S-BT Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID <pageID>