Hosea Latron Swopes v. A. CIOLLI, Warden

-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOSEA LATRON SWOPES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
A. CIOLLI, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 22-16054
D.C. No.
1:21-cv-01418-JLT-HBK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BUMATAY, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Hosea Swopes appeals from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Swopes challenged his underlying Missouri sentence under the “escape
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 29 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2
hatch” or “saving clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to
file a § 2241 petition if his remedy under § 2255 was “inadequate or ineffective.”
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th
Cir. 2011). Since the parties briefed this case, however, the Supreme Court issued
a decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857 (2023). Jones held that § 2255(e)
“does not permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in statutory
interpretation to circumvent [the] restrictions on second or successive § 2255
motions by filing a § 2241 petition.” 143 S. Ct. at 1864.
Swopes concedes that Jones is dispositive and forecloses his claim under
§ 2241.1 Because Swopes had no right to file a § 2241 petition in the first instance,
we need not address his challenges to the enhancement of his sentence in light of
Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction.2
AFFIRMED.
1 The parties filed supplemental briefing in light of Jones.
2 Swopes’s motion to take judicial notice (Dkt. 11) and Appellee’s unopposed
motion to supplement the record (Dkt. 20) are denied as moot.

-- 2 of 2 --