28 U.S.C. § 2255
Section 2255: a federal prisoner's motion to vacate a sentence
A federal claim in United States district courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
A federal prisoner does not file a habeas petition the way a state prisoner does. The mechanism looks similar and behaves differently in ways that decide cases.
It goes to the sentencing court, not the district where you are confined. Review is de novo, because there is no state court decision to defer to. And the safety valve that once let prisoners raise intervening statutory decisions was closed in 2023.
What the claim is
You are in federal custody and contend the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or federal law, that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence exceeded the maximum, or that it is otherwise subject to collateral attack.
The staple claims: ineffective assistance of counsel, a guilty plea that was not knowing and voluntary, a sentence enhanced under a provision later held invalid, and prosecutorial misconduct.
Relief is vacatur, resentencing, a new trial, or release.
Where the right comes from
An express statutory substitute for traditional habeas. Congress created it in 1948 for a practical reason: habeas petitions had to be filed where the prisoner was held, which buried the few districts containing large federal prisons under cases about trials conducted elsewhere. Section 2255 sends the motion back to the court that imposed the sentence, where the record already is.
The saving clause preserves a traditional habeas route where the § 2255 remedy "is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention."
That clause is now nearly a dead letter. In Jones v. Hendrix (2023) the Court held it "does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent [AEDPA's] restrictions on second or successive §2255 motions by filing a §2241 habeas petition." A prisoner whose conduct a later decision says was never a crime, and who has already used their one motion, may have no route at all.
What a plaintiff has to prove
Constitutional error, a jurisdictional defect, or an error of law amounting to "a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice." Ordinary trial error that could have been raised on direct appeal does not qualify.
Review is de novo. There is no state-court judgment, so none of the deference that governs a state prisoner's petition applies here. That is the single biggest substantive difference between the two, and it cuts in the federal prisoner's favour.
How long you have to file
One year, from whichever of four dates applies — the structure parallels the state-prisoner clock:
- The date the judgment of conviction became final.
- The date an unlawful government impediment to filing was removed.
- The date the Supreme Court recognised a new right and made it retroactively applicable.
- The date the supporting facts could have been discovered with due diligence.
Equitable tolling is available on the ordinary framework — diligence plus an extraordinary circumstance.
Note what is missing: there is no state post-conviction proceeding to toll the clock, so the year runs without the interruption a state prisoner gets.
What has to happen before you file
No state exhaustion — there is no state proceeding.
Procedural default applies. A claim not raised on direct appeal is barred unless you show cause and prejudice, or actual innocence. One important exception: ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims may be raised for the first time in a § 2255 motion, because the trial record is usually inadequate to resolve them on direct appeal.
Second-or-successive motions require certification from the court of appeals, and the grounds are narrow: newly discovered evidence establishing innocence by clear and convincing evidence, or a new retroactive rule of constitutional law. Note that word — a new rule of statutory interpretation does not qualify, which is exactly the gap Jones v. Hendrix declined to fill through the saving clause.
Character: jurisdictional gatekeeping.
One recent decision opened a narrow door. In Bowe v. United States, decided January 9, 2026, the Court held that the provision requiring dismissal of repeat habeas claims does not apply to second or successive motions filed by federal prisoners under § 2255(h) — and confirmed that a federal prisoner may seek certiorari when a court of appeals denies authorisation. It is a limited holding, but in an area moving steadily one direction, it moved the other way.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
The United States is the respondent, and the motion is filed in the sentencing court — not the district of confinement, which is where a state prisoner's petition goes.
That difference trips up prisoners transferred far from where they were tried, and filing in the wrong district costs time the one-year clock may not have.
Common defenses
Untimeliness under the one-year clock.
Procedural default — the claim belonged on direct appeal.
The successive-motion bar, absent certification.
A collateral-attack waiver in the plea agreement. These are common, generally enforceable, and frequently overlooked — many defendants waived this remedy at sentencing without registering it.
No fundamental defect — the error, if any, does not meet the standard.
What the claim pays
Vacatur of the conviction or sentence, resentencing, a new trial, or release.
No damages. No jury.
A certificate of appealability is required to appeal a denial, on the same substantial-showing standard that governs state-prisoner petitions.
What people get wrong
"I file where I'm incarcerated." No — in the sentencing court. That is the whole design of the statute.
"The saving clause is a general safety valve." Not since Jones v. Hendrix. It does not open a route for intervening statutory-interpretation claims.
"A new Supreme Court case means I can file again." Only if it announced a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive. A statutory ruling does not satisfy the successive-motion standard.
"My ineffective-assistance claim is defaulted because I didn't raise it on appeal." Generally not — that claim is the recognised exception.
"The federal court defers to the trial judge." No. Review is de novo, unlike a state prisoner's petition.
"I can appeal a denial as of right." You need a certificate of appealability.
Where it came from
Section 2255 was enacted in 1948 to relieve the districts containing federal penitentiaries of a habeas caseload generated by trials held elsewhere. It was designed as an equivalent remedy in a better forum, and the saving clause existed so nobody would be worse off for the change.
AEDPA in 1996 added the one-year clock and the successive-motion certification requirement, converting an equivalent remedy into a restricted one.
The saving clause then did real work for two decades, as circuits used it to reach prisoners serving sentences for conduct later held not to be criminal. Jones v. Hendrix ended that in 2023, resolving a lopsided split against the prisoners and leaving the question of what happens to them to Congress. Bowe (2026) is the first meaningful movement the other way.
Common questions
Where do I file a section 2255 motion?
In the court that sentenced you, not the district where you are imprisoned. That is the central difference from a state prisoner's habeas petition.
How long do I have?
One year, running from whichever of four dates applies — usually when your conviction became final. There is no state post-conviction proceeding to pause the clock.
Can I raise ineffective assistance of counsel if I didn't raise it on direct appeal?
Yes. That is the recognised exception to procedural default, because the trial record is usually inadequate to resolve such a claim on direct appeal.
A new Supreme Court decision says my conduct wasn't a crime. Can I file again?
Probably not, if you have already filed once. Successive motions require a new retroactive rule of constitutional law, and a decision interpreting a statute does not qualify. Jones v. Hendrix closed the alternative route in 2023.
Does the court defer to the judge who sentenced me?
No. Review is de novo. The deference that governs state-prisoner habeas has no application here.