Federal Habeas Corpus: Section 2255

A Section 2255 motion is the principal way a person serving a federal sentence challenges that sentence after the direct appeal is over. It is filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, titled "Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence," and it asks the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct it.

It is often called "federal habeas corpus," but that is loose shorthand. A § 2255 motion goes back to the sentencing court, not to a court in the district where the person is confined, and it attacks the sentence itself. A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 goes to the district of confinement and attacks the execution of a sentence, such as the computation of good conduct time or a disciplinary sanction.

The Four Grounds

Section 2255(a) allows a motion on four grounds:

• the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States
• the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence
• the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law
• the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack

In practice the great majority of motions are brought on the first ground, and the most common single claim within it is ineffective assistance of counsel, measured against the two-part test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984): that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

Ineffective-assistance claims are the one category the Supreme Court has said should normally be raised here rather than on direct appeal. In Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003), the Court held that failing to raise such a claim on direct appeal does not bar it in a later § 2255 motion, because the trial record is usually not developed enough to evaluate it.

The One-Year Deadline

Section 2255(f), added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, sets a one-year limitation period. It runs from the latest of four dates:

1. the date the judgment of conviction becomes final
2. the date an unlawful government-created impediment to filing is removed
3. the date the Supreme Court initially recognizes the right asserted, if that right has been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review
4. the date on which the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence

For most people the first trigger is the one that matters. Where no petition for certiorari is filed, the judgment generally becomes final when the time to seek Supreme Court review expires. Missing the deadline is the single most common reason motions are dismissed without any look at their merits.

Second and Successive Motions

A second or successive § 2255 motion may not simply be filed in the district court. Section 2255(h) requires it first to be certified by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals, and certification is available only for:

• newly discovered evidence that, if proven, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense, or
• a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable

Section 2255(e), the "saving clause," permits resort to § 2241 where the § 2255 remedy is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the] detention." The Supreme Court read that clause narrowly in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), holding that the saving clause does not let a prisoner bring a § 2241 petition to raise a statutory-interpretation claim that § 2255(h) would bar.

Procedure

Motions are governed by the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. The court may dismiss the motion summarily if it plainly appears from the motion and the record that the movant is not entitled to relief, may order the government to respond, may expand the record, and may hold an evidentiary hearing.

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 2255 proceeding, though a court may appoint counsel, and must do so if an evidentiary hearing is required under the Rules.

To appeal a denial, the movant needs a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), issued only on a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

If the court grants relief it must vacate and set the judgment aside and then discharge the prisoner, resentence, grant a new trial, or correct the sentence.

What a 2255 Motion Is Not

A § 2255 motion is not a second appeal. Claims that were raised and decided on direct appeal generally cannot be relitigated, and claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not are ordinarily procedurally defaulted unless the movant shows cause and actual prejudice, or actual innocence. It is also not the vehicle for challenging good conduct time, custody classification, halfway-house placement, or disciplinary sanctions, all of which concern the execution of a sentence and belong under § 2241 after administrative remedies are exhausted.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the deadline for a 2255 motion?

One year, running from the latest of the four dates in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). For most people that is the date the judgment of conviction became final.

Q: Is a 2255 motion the same as habeas corpus?

Not exactly. A § 2255 motion goes to the sentencing court and attacks the sentence. A § 2241 habeas petition goes to the district of confinement and attacks how the sentence is being carried out, such as good time or disciplinary action.

Q: Can I file a second 2255 motion?

Only if a panel of the court of appeals certifies it first, and only on newly discovered evidence meeting a high standard or a new retroactive rule of constitutional law from the Supreme Court.

Q: Do I get a lawyer for a 2255 motion?

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel, but the court may appoint one, and must appoint one if an evidentiary hearing is required.

Q: What is the most common 2255 claim?

Ineffective assistance of counsel, judged under the two-part test in Strickland v. Washington. It is also the claim the Supreme Court has said normally belongs in a § 2255 motion rather than on direct appeal.

See Also

• Direct Appeal Procedures
• Compassionate Release Policies
• Federal Good Time Credit Policies
• Administrative Remedy Process (BP-8 to BP-11)
• Federal Sentencing Guidelines