Get it on Google Play Preorder Audio Law Reader from App Store

Case Digest on Jones v. Hendrix

Case Digest on Jones v. Hendrix
This case clarifies that Section 2255(e) does not permit a prisoner to use a § 2241 habeas petition to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions due to an intervening change in statutory interpretation.


The case revolves around the procedural aspects of federal prisoners' rights to challenge their convictions based on subsequent changes in law.

Facts of the Case:

Marcus DeAngelo Jones was convicted for unlawful firearm possession and sought to challenge his conviction under § 2241, citing a change in legal interpretation after his conviction became final.

Issue of the Case:

Whether § 2255(e)'s saving clause allows a prisoner to bypass AEDPA's restrictions on successive motions through a § 2241 petition based on a new statutory interpretation.

Ruling of the Case:

The Supreme Court affirmed that the saving clause does not permit such circumvention, maintaining the limitations on successive collateral attacks as intended by AEDPA.

This decision reinforces the restrictions on successive motions, emphasizing the finality of convictions and limiting the scope of habeas corpus petitions in challenging convictions based on new statutory interpretations.


JONES v. HENDRIX upholds the integrity of AEDPA's restrictions on post-conviction relief, underscoring the balance between the need for finality in criminal convictions and the opportunity for legal redress.